Screen Shot 2024 11 17 at 5.24.01 AM

Discharging ANY Debt: How the “Accepted for Value” (A4V) Process is Codified in the Uniform Commercial Code đź‘€

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides a structured legal framework for negotiable instruments, obligations, and their discharge. Among its provisions, sections like UCC §§ 3-303, 3-604, 3-104, 3-409, 2-206, and 1-103 reveal a clear foundation for the Accepted for Value (A4V) process. This process allows obligations such as mortgages, loans, or other debts to be addressed through lawful mechanisms of discharge, settlement, or setoff.


Key UCC Provisions Supporting Accepted for Value

UCC § 3-303: Value and Consideration

This section defines when a negotiable instrument is deemed to have value and establishes consideration as the legal basis for enforceability. It sets forth that an instrument issued in payment of a prior obligation or as a security interest carries inherent value.

  • A4V Connection: Recognizing an instrument’s value allows it to be treated as pre-paid or already satisfied, a key aspect of A4V when returning an endorsed instrument to discharge obligations.

UCC § 3-604: Discharge by Cancellation or Renunciation

Under § 3-604, a party entitled to enforce an instrument can discharge the obligation through acts such as striking out a signature, adding discharge language, or surrendering the instrument.

  • A4V Connection: Endorsing a financial instrument with “Accepted for Value” and returning it for settlement activates § 3-604. This acknowledges that the instrument itself serves as the means to set off the debt.

UCC § 3-104: Definition of a Negotiable Instrument

Section 3-104 identifies checks, promissory notes, and similar documents as negotiable instruments—unconditional promises to pay that can be transferred, endorsed, or discharged.

  • A4V Connection: Treating obligations like mortgages as negotiable instruments allows them to be accepted for value and used to extinguish corresponding liabilities.

UCC § 3-409: Acceptance of a Draft

Section 3-409 outlines that a draft is accepted when the drawee signs an agreement to honor it, whether directly on the draft or through a separate written commitment.

  • A4V Connection: A properly endorsed draft, including the “Accepted for Value” language, is a legally binding acknowledgment that the instrument will be honored for settlement or discharge. This reinforces the A4V process as a lawful acceptance and agreement to settle.

UCC § 2-206: Offer and Acceptance in Formation of Contract

Section 2-206 specifies that acceptance of an offer can occur in any manner reasonable under the circumstances.

  • A4V Connection: The endorsement of an instrument with “Accepted for Value” is a reasonable acceptance, providing a lawful response that satisfies contractual obligations.

UCC § 1-103: General Principles of Equity and Law

This section ensures that where the UCC does not explicitly address a matter, general principles of law, equity, and fairness apply.

  • A4V Connection: By integrating equity into UCC processes, § 1-103 legitimizes A4V as a method to achieve settlement through fairness and good faith.

Accepted for Value in Practice

The A4V process involves recognizing financial instruments as carrying inherent value, endorsing them to indicate acceptance, and returning them to the issuer for discharge of obligations. Here’s how it works:

  1. Acknowledgment of Value:
  2. Endorsement:
    • The recipient writes “Accepted for Value. Return for Value. Setoff, Settlement, and Closure of All Charges” on the instrument and signs it, invoking UCC §§ 3-604 and 1-103.
  3. Return to Issuer:
    • The endorsed document is sent back to the issuer or their agent (e.g., JP Morgan Chase for the IRS) with instructions for settlement.
  4. Discharge of Obligation:
    • The process leverages the instrument’s value to offset the debt, effectively satisfying the liability in question.

Screen Shot 2024 11 17 at 5.24.01 AM

Screen Shot 2024 11 17 at 5.24.01 AM

Example: Discharging a Mortgage

Consider a scenario where an individual seeks to discharge a $200,000 mortgage:

  1. The mortgage note is acknowledged as a negotiable instrument under UCC § 3-104.
  2. The homeowner writes “Accepted for Value” on the instrument, recognizing its value and invoking UCC §§ 3-604 and 3-409 for discharge.
  3. The instrument is returned to the lender, along with a notice of instructions referencing UCC §§ 3-303 and 1-103, requesting setoff and settlement.
  4. The lender, acting under these provisions, processes the note for settlement, applying its value to satisfy the outstanding balance.

Why Accepted for Value Matters

The A4V process isn’t simply a loophole but rather a lawful mechanism supported by UCC principles to address financial obligations equitably.

  • It redefines how negotiable instruments like mortgages or tax bills are perceived—not merely as debts but as evidence of credit.
  • By endorsing and returning such instruments, individuals invoke a codified process for discharge, echoing the broader principles of fairness and equity enshrined in UCC § 1-103.

Through this framework, the A4V process provides a pathway to resolve obligations while maintaining compliance with established legal norms.

Leave your vote

2192833 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish "the People"

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish “the People”

A federal RICO action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unveils a calculated scheme orchestrated by attorneys Barry Lee O’Connor and John Bailey, in concert with MARINAJ PROPERTIES and the Doumit family. The Verified Complaint lays out a detailed pattern of racketeering involving simulated legal proceedings, fraudulent conveyance, and theft of trust assets through a void and defective Trustee’s Deed. Despite perfected title claims and unrebutted affidavits establishing lawful ownership, Judge Rachel A. Marquez has enabled the misconduct by shielding culpable parties and targeting the rightful beneficiaries asserting their rights. The suit cites violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (RICO), 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 1341 (mail fraud), along with California Civil Code §§ 1709 (fraud) and 3346 (treble damages for wrongful injury to property). This case exemplifies judicial corruption—where bar-protected insiders act with impunity while private Americans are silenced. The court’s response will reveal whether justice, equity, and due process remain alive in California.

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

UCC §§ 1-103, 3-104, 3-601, and 3-603 operate as the foundation of lawful commercial remedy across all 50 states. Section 1-103 ensures equity, common law, and the Law Merchant remain enforceable alongside UCC processes. Section 3-104 defines what qualifies as a negotiable instrument—an essential element in debt discharge. Section 3-601 codifies the principle that all obligations can be discharged by contract, agreement, or valid performance. Section 3-603 delivers the lethal commercial strike: once lawful tender is made—even if refused—the obligation is discharged as a matter of law. These statutes, codified in every U.S. jurisdiction, are the legal artillery that allow secured parties and private trusts to assert control, tender discharge, and permanently terminate fraudulent or unperfected claims. Use them with precision—or be used by those who will.

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!