We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience,
enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other
business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy.
By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
Understanding the Close-Connectedness Doctrine in Negotiable Instruments
Definition & Meaning
The close-connectedness doctrine is a legal principle that some courts use to determine whether a person or entity that receives a negotiable note can be considered a holder in due course. This status is important because it provides certain protections under the law. If the assignee (the person receiving the note) is found to be too closely connected to the original holder (the person who created the note), they may not qualify for this status.
This doctrine suggests that if the assignee has a close relationship with the transferor (the original holder), they may have knowledge of issues or problems related to the underlying transaction that created the note. As a result, they cannot claim they acted in good faith when acquiring the note.
Table of content
Legal Use & context
The close-connectedness doctrine is primarily used in civil law, particularly in cases involving negotiable instruments like promissory notes and checks. It is relevant in financial transactions where parties transfer rights to receive payment. Understanding this doctrine is essential for individuals and businesses involved in such transactions, as it can affect their legal standing and rights.
Users can manage aspects of these transactions using legal forms available through platforms like US Legal Forms, which provide templates for creating and transferring negotiable instruments.
Key legal elements
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
Example 1: A bank sells a promissory note to a close business partner. If the partner had a role in drafting the loan agreement or setting the terms, they may be found to be too closely connected to the original holder, thus losing holder-in-due-course status.
Example 2: A mortgage company transfers a note to a subsidiary it owns. If the subsidiary had significant influence over the mortgage company's operations, it may not be considered a holder in due course due to their close relationship. (hypothetical example)
State-by-state differences
Examples of state differences (not exhaustive):
State
Variation
California
Emphasizes the importance of the relationship in determining good faith.
New York
Has specific case law that outlines the factors influencing close-connectedness.
Texas
Focuses on the transferee's knowledge of the transferor's issues.
This is not a complete list. State laws vary, and users should consult local rules for specific guidance.
Comparison with related terms
Term
Definition
Difference
Holder in Due Course
A party that has acquired a negotiable instrument in good faith.
Close-connectedness doctrine may disqualify a transferee from this status.
Negotiable Instrument
A written document guaranteeing the payment of a specific amount.
The doctrine applies specifically to the transfer of these instruments.
Common misunderstandings
What to do if this term applies to you
If you are involved in a transaction that may be affected by the close-connectedness doctrine, consider the following steps:
Review your relationship with the transferor to assess any potential issues.
Consult with a legal professional to understand your rights and obligations.
Utilize legal forms from US Legal Forms to ensure proper documentation of your transactions.
In complex situations, seeking professional legal help is advisable to navigate potential pitfalls.
Find the legal form that fits your case
Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.