This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Defendants have filed a Grounds of Defense, asserting certain affirmative defenses to liability. Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to partial summary judgment. As discussed more fully below, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted in part and denied in part. The court will address Defendant’s affirmative defenses as they relate to each note specifically, and to both Notes in general.

***

   The following facts are undisputed with respect to the 1991 Note which is the subject of Count II of the Motion for Judgment. Defendants Ad Barnes, Trustee, Ad Barnes and Elaine Barnes executed a * * * Note to Sovran Bank, N.A. on August 27, 1991, in the principal amount of $200,000. Plaintiff NationsBank is the successor by merger to Sovran and is now the holder of this Note. Under the terms of the Note, Plaintiff is entitled to collect all expenses, including court costs and attorney’s fees, incurred in the enforcement of its rights under the Note. By letter dated February 17, 1993, NationsBank made demand on the 1991 Note.

   The factual question still in dispute concerning the 1991 Note is whether it is a demand note. Plaintiff argues that the language of the note is unambiguous and is clearly a demand note. Defendants argue that the detailed enumeration of events constituting default is inconsistent with a demand note. Thus, a standard of good faith must be applied before a demand for accelerated repayment can be made.

   [UCC] §1–203 establishes a general duty of good faith in every contract governed by the Commercial Code. Under any contract providing for accelerated payment at will, §1–208 states that the option is to be exercised only in the good faith belief that the prospect of payment or performance is impaired. However, the Official Comment to this section indicates that it is not applicable to a demand instrument.

   [UCC] 3A–108(a) [UCC Revised §3–108(a)] states that a note is payable ‘‘on demand’’ if it says it is payable on demand or states no time for payment. In this case, the 1991 * * * Note is a standard form with different forms of repayment set out on the first page. The box marked payable ‘‘on demand’’ has been checked in this instance. There is no time set for repayment, only a provision requiring monthly payments of interest.

   It is the court’s opinion that the 1991 Note is unambiguous and is clearly a demand note. Thus, Plaintiff is under no obligation to show good faith before requesting payment on the note. Since demand has been made by Plaintiff, Defendants are liable. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability under the 1991 Note.

   As the question of the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees and costs under the 1991 Note is still in dispute, summary judgment cannot be granted on this issue.