Under Juhnkes argument, if one of the defendants had received a gift of personal property from Marquardt some fifty years ago, the statute of limitation will not begin to run on that gift until the donee has given value. Therefore, unless value has been given, that gift would be subject to avoidance even today. The adoption of Juhnkes reasoning would likewise cause great unease in South Dakota s lending industry, which has in the past and will in the future, rely on promissory notes and other personal property as collateral. If payments made on such notes are avoidable simply because the notes are not paid in full, the notes essentially have no value as collateral. Such a holding would throw lender-borrower relationships into a state of upheaval.
Judgment is affirmed.
The term instrument includes a negotiable instrument . . . In return for a binding commitment to extend credit or for the extension of immediately available credit . . . Kennedy was a member of the committee that drafted UFTA for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Juhnkes argument that the gifts were incomplete because Marquardt exercised control over the notes, does not affect our conclusion. The note they rely on named Marquardt and Darlene Engelmeyer, one of the defendants, as co-payees.