In November 2000, Monay Jones signed a promissory note in favor of a mortgage company in the amount of $261,250, using the deed to her home in Denver, Colorado, as collateral. Fifth Third Bank soon became the holder of the note. After Jones defaulted on the payment, in September 2001 she and the bank agreed to raise the note’s balance to $280,231.23. She again defaulted. In November, the bank received a check from a third party as payment on Jones’s note. It was the bank’s policy to refuse personal checks in payoff of large debts. The bank representative who worked on Jones’s account noted receipt of the check in the bank’s records and forwarded it to the “payoff department.” A week later, the bank discovered that the check had been lost without having been posted to Jones’s account or submitted for payment. The bank notified Jones, and both parties searched, without success, for a copy of the check or evidence of the identity of its maker, the drawee bank, or the amount. In late 2002, the bank filed a suit in a Colorado state court to foreclose on Jones’s home. She insisted that the note had been paid in full by a cashier’s check issued by an Arkansas bank at the request of her deceased aunt. [Fifth Third Bank v. Jones, 168 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2007)]

(a) What evidence supports a finding that Jones gave the bank a check? Does it seem more likely that the check was a cashier’s check or a personal check? Would it be fair for a court to find that the check had paid the note in full?

(b) Under UCC 3–310, if a cashier’s check or other certified check “is taken for an obligation, the obligation is discharged.” The bank argued that it had not “taken [Jones’s check] for an obligation” because the bank’s internal administrative actions were still pending when the check was lost. Would it be fair for the court to rule in the bank’s favor based on this argument? Why or why not?