Opinion ID: 1190061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: unauthorized indorsements

Text: (1) Under California Uniform Commercial Code section 8311, Unless the owner has ratified an unauthorized indorsement or is otherwise precluded from asserting its ineffectiveness (a) He may assert its ineffectiveness against the issuer ... and (b) An issuer who registers the transfer of a security upon the unauthorized indorsement is subject to liability for improper registration (Section 8404). The certificates at issue appear to be indorsed by Mayme, Roy and Glenn Fildes bearing their purported signatures. Accordingly, defendant issuers took the position at trial that the securities were not registered upon an unauthorized indorsement under section 8311. The trial court agreed, finding that the signatures of Mayme, Glenn and Roy are presumed to be genuine or authorized, (see Cal. U. Com. Code, § 8105, subd. (2) (b)), and that Plaintiffs failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signatures ... were not genuine or were unauthorized. To the contrary, the evidence was overwhelming that the foregoing signatures were forged in furtherance of a scheme by third parties, who had stolen the certificates, to negotiate the stock to others. This evidence we do not describe because defense counsel so concedes. We conclude, accordingly, that plaintiffs satisfactorily established that the indorsements borne by the certificates were forgeries, and that by reason of the unauthorized indorsements, section 8311 is properly invoked.