In January 2007, Kelvin Settle executed a promissory note in favor of Bank of America, where he received a $45,500 loan and Bank of America earned a deed of trust on his property as collateral. In 2009, Bank of America transferred the loan from one system of record to another. In the process, Bank of America also changed the loan numbers. Four years later, Settle missed a mortgage payment, and Bank of America foreclosed the property and sold it.

This case made its way to the US District Court in Missouri after a number of failed attempts by Settle. Settle sued Bank of America for, among other things, violating the UCC by materially altering the promissory note by changing the loan numbers without consent. What must be true for Settle’s argument to hold weight? How did the court decide, and what was the key distinction it made?