CO Code § 4-3-301 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 4 - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 3 - Negotiable Instruments|Part 3 - Enforcement of Instruments|§ 4-3-301. Person Entitled to Enforce Instrument

 “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section 4-3-309 or 4-3-418 (d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.   History. Source: L. 94: Entire article R&RE, p. 853, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.    Cross references:   For offenses relating to this title, see part 5 of article 5 of title 18.   Official Comments   Copyright by the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Reproduced with the permission of the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code. All rights reserved. —   Editor's note:   The Official Comments to the Uniform Commercial Code are available only in the printed book form of Colorado Revised Statutes. As noted above, the Official Comments are subject to copyright by the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. At this time, Colorado has a license to reprint the Official Comments in the printed book form.   Editor's note:   This article was numbered as article 3 of chapter 155, C.R.S. 1963. The provisions of this article were repealed and reenacted in 1994, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this article prior to 1994, consult the Colorado statutory research explanatory note and the table itemizing the replacement volumes and supplements to the original volume of C.R.S. 1973 beginning on page vii in the front of this volume. Former C.R.S. section numbers are shown in editor's notes following those sections that were relocated.   Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 4-3-301 as it existed prior to 1994.   OFFICIAL COMMENT   This section replaces former Section 3-301 that stated the rights of a holder. The rights stated in former Section 3-301 to transfer, negotiate, enforce, or discharge an instrument are stated in other sections of Article 3. In revised Article 3, Section 3-301 defines “person entitled to enforce” an instrument. The definition recognizes that enforcement is not limited to holders. The quoted phrase includes a person enforcing a lost or stolen instrument. Section 3-309. It also includes a person in possession of an instrument who is not a holder. A nonholder in possession of an instrument includes a person that acquired rights of a holder by subrogation or under Section 3-203(a). It also includes any other person who under applicable law is a successor to the holder or otherwise acquires the holder's rights.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   A note drawn to alternative, not joint, payees can be discharged only by a holder of the instrument. Reese v. Lietzan, 160 Colo. 253 , 419 P.2d 959.   A holder of a note may sue upon it even if held as collateral to another which is unpaid. Rogers v. First State Bank, 79 Colo. 84 , 243 P. 637 (1926); Smith v. Weindrop, 833 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1992).   If holder does not have entire interest. A holder may bring suit on a promissory note even if he does not have the entire interest in it. Retallic v. Dickson, 75 Colo. 123 , 224 P. 1054 (1924).   If holder paid nothing. The indorsee of a promissory note is entitled to an action thereon against the maker though he paid nothing for it as well as against a prior indorser. Sykes v. Kruse, 49 Colo. 560 , 113 P. 1013 (1914).   Payee, not the owner, cannot by suit cut off defense which maker might have against real party in interest. Retallic v. Dickson, 75 Colo. 123 , 224 P. 1054 (1924).   Bank not authorized to enforce note because authorized agent already accepted a payoff of the note. Payment to an authorized agent of the holder has the same legal effect as payment to the holder. Section contains no explicit requirement that payment must be made only to the holder of an instrument, and the common law of agency supplements the UCC. Citywide Banks v. Armijo, 313 P.3d 647 (Colo. App. 2011).   No judgment can be legally rendered against the makers of a promissory note in favor of the original payee who has parted with his title thereto before the bringing of the action where there is nothing to show there had been a redelivery to him before the beginning of the action or at the time of the trial. Shaw v. Brady, 80 Colo. 337 , 251 P. 532 (1926).   Plaintiff's possession of a promissory note is prima facie evidence of ownership although indorsed by him as against a general objection that his complaint does not state any cause of action. Gumaer v. Jackson, 37 Colo. 39 , 86 P. 885 (1906).   The holder of a promissory note may set off the amount thereof in an action by the maker against him, even though he purchased the note solely for the purpose of so applying it and regardless of the fact that he acquired the note at a great discount. Holick v. Stokes, 53 Colo. 385 , 127 P. 143 (1912).   Applied in Commercial Credit Corp. v. Univ. Nat'l Bank, 590 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1979); La Junta State Bank v. Travis, 727 P.2d 48 (Colo. 1986).