Topic: Creditors Rights
In an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals in Shaya v. Karam, et. al, Case No. 308905, refused to allow plaintiffs to enforce a promissory note because plaintiffs possessed only a photocopy of the note. Plaintiffs had taken their interest in the promissory note via an allonge from the original holder of the promissory note, but the Court of Appeals held that the allonge was not a valid endorsement of a negotiable instrument because it was not affixed to the original note (only a photocopy of the original note) as required by MCL § 440.3204(1). Further, plaintiffs were not holders in due course of the note under MCL § 440.3301 because there was no evidence that the original note was transferred to plaintiffs’ possession.
Anthony J. Kochis is a member at Wolfson Bolton PLLC, located in metropolitan Detroit — www.wolfsonbolton.com.