## Facts

- Virginia National Bank sued Edgar M. Holt and Gustava H. Holt, jointly and severally, to recover $6,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees on a promissory note payable to the bank.
- The note was dated December 12, 1973, due 90 days after date, and purported to bear the signatures of both Holts.
- Edgar Holt was served but did not appear; the trial court entered a default judgment against him.
- Gustava Holt appeared and specifically denied that the signature on the note was hers.
- At trial, the bank produced the note and offered testimony identifying the signature as Gustava Holt’s.
- Holt offered no testimony or handwriting evidence; she relied on the bank’s interrogatory answers stating it did not know of anyone who saw her sign the note and did not know whether she authorized her husband to sign for her.
- The trial court submitted the genuineness of the signature to the jury, which returned a verdict for Holt; the court entered judgment on that verdict and denied the bank’s motion to set it aside.

## Issues

1. Under Va. Code § 8.3-307 (UCC § 3-307), when a defendant specifically denies a signature on a negotiable instrument, must the defendant produce evidence supporting the denial before the presumption of authenticity is overcome and the plaintiff is put to proof?
2. Whether it was error to submit the genuineness of Gustava Holt’s signature to the jury on the evidentiary record presented.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the judgment for Holt and entered final judgment for Virginia National Bank.
- A specific denial in the pleadings puts the signature’s effectiveness in issue, but it does not, by itself, rebut the statutory presumption that the signature is genuine or authorized.
- The alleged signer must first make a sufficient evidentiary showing supporting forgery or lack of authorization before the party claiming under the signature must prove authenticity.
- Holt’s reliance on the bank’s lack of direct knowledge about witnessing or authorization did not constitute evidence of forgery or unauthorized signing.
- Because the presumption was not rebutted, it was error to submit the genuineness question to the jury; production of the instrument entitled the bank to recover absent a proven defense.

## Legal Principles

- Under Va. Code § 8.3-307(1), a signature on an instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings.
- When the effectiveness of a signature is put in issue, the party claiming under the signature bears the burden of establishing it, but the signature is presumed genuine or authorized (subject to statutory exceptions not applicable here).
- The presumption requires a finding of genuineness unless the party denying the signature introduces evidence sufficient to support a finding of forgery or lack of authorization.
- Forgery or lack of authorization cannot be shown merely by pointing to the claimant’s lack of direct proof (e.g., no eyewitness or uncertainty about authorization).
- Under Va. Code § 8.3-307(2), once signatures are admitted or established, production of the instrument entitles the holder to recover unless the defendant establishes a defense.

## Conclusion

The court held that a defendant who specifically denies a signature on a negotiable instrument must present affirmative evidence supporting forgery or lack of authorization before the presumption of authenticity is rebutted; absent such evidence, the issue should not go to the jury and the holder is entitled to judgment on the instrument.


Virginia Nat'l Bank v. Holt, 216 Va. 500, 219 S.E.2d 881 (Va. 1975)