Opinion ID: 2982304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevant Ohio Statutes

Text: This appeal centers on the relationship between three provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, two of which are derived from the Uniform Commercial Code, and one of which is not. The first provision prohibits the conversion of a written instrument and forms the basis for Plaintiffs’ claim: The law applicable to conversion of personal property applies to instruments. An instrument also is converted if it is taken by transfer, other than a negotiation, from a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or if a bank makes or obtains payment with respect to the instrument for a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or receive payment. -6- Case No. 13-3493 Pate et al. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, et al. Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.60(A) (emphasis added); see also U.C.C. § 3-420(a) (2012). The banks argue—and the district court agreed—that Plaintiffs’ claim is time-barred under another UCC provision, which states: Unless governed by other law regarding claims for indemnity or contribution, any of the following actions shall be brought within three years after the cause of action accrues: (1) An action for conversion of an instrument . . . . Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16(G); see also U.C.C. § 3-118(g) (2012). This section “does not define when a cause of action accrues.” Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16 cmt. n.1 (1990). The application notes provide the following guidance: “Accrual of a cause of action is stated in other sections of Article 3 [of the UCC] such as those that state the various obligations of parties to an instrument.” Id. However, Plaintiffs contend that a third provision in Ohio’s code governs the applicable statute of limitations. Section 2305.09(B) provides that a claim “[f]or the recovery of personal property, or for taking or detaining it” can be brought “within four years after the cause thereof accrued.” It further explains that, in actions “for the wrongful taking of personal property, the causes thereof shall not accrue until the wrongdoer is discovered.” Id. § 2305.09 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs therefore argue that their cause of action did not accrue until they actually became aware of the identities of the banks that had converted their checks.