Court Opinion

ID: 9665754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:56:12.157574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:18.556125
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
On motion for rehearing, respondent argues that the certificates of deposit in question fall within the ambit of Article 8 [§ 400.8 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.], not Article 3 [§ 400.3 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.], of the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code and that, therefore, no defenses can be asserted by United Savings since the possessor of the certificates (respondent) is a holder in due course. Respondent also argues that if the certificates are held to be a hybrid of Article 3 and Article 8, then Abraham Lincoln Insurance Co. v. Franklin Savings and Loan Association, supra, controls and that between two innocent parties, the party who creates the situation resulting in loss — in this case, United Savings and Loan — must bear the loss.
We hold that these savings certificates are not within the purview of Article 8 of the Missouri Uniform Commercial *873Code [§ 400.8 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.], because they were not issued in a class or series, nor are they a medium for investment as meant by § 400.8-102 RSMo 1969, V.A. M.S. Article 3 [§ 400.3 RSMo 1969, V.A. M.S.] encompasses isolated transactions, as was the case here, whereas Article 8 is directed to multiple transactions in which a group of promises, all for the same amount and all due at the same time, are made to multiple parties with the intention that the security evidencing their promises will be traded. The saving certificates in question here clearly do not meet the definitional requirements of Article 8, and that article is not applicable here.
The contention relying on Abraham Lincoln has already been discussed.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
All Judges concur.