Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fleet National Bank v. Liberty

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided March 18, 2004Published

1DissentLevy, J.

[¶ 12] The Court’s opinion is, in my view, contrary to the Legislature’s intent to have all provisions of Article 3-A of the Uniform Commercial Code apply to all types of negotiable instruments, including the precise class of promissory notes at issue in this case. I therefore respectfully dissent.

A. Article 3-A of the U.C.C. Applies to Negotiable Demand Notes

[¶ 13] Article 3-A of the U.C.C. was enacted in Maine in 1993, prior to the defaults asserted by Fleet Bank as the basis for this action. As its prefatory note makes clear, Article 3-A is intended to provide a uniform and national…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Lewiston Firefighters Ass'n, Local 785 v. City of LewistonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
  2. Johnson v. McNeilSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2002
  3. State v. TaplinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1968
  4. Samples-Ehrlich v. SimonColorado Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Premier Capital, Inc. v. DoucetteSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2002

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API