Since the UCC is fairly uniform throughout the country (except as
to use of allonges in NY state), designation of another place is not going
to usually be important. If the place is wrong as to city, but correct
as to state, it doesn't matter at all. If it is wrong as to state, for
example, suppose that you really signed in Wisconsin or Minnesota,
it is still not going to be relevant unless you know of some difference
in the UCC between the place of actual execution and the place shown.It is good to question everything, but this is probably not a
productive avenue of inquiry or defense.
I think that Seth and Texas have ably responded to this query.
I would only add that if there was some difference in Illinois and Wisconsin
law as to either interpretation of the contract or the course to follow in
the event of a default (as with differing cases on application of conditions
precedent, discussed today in another thread), a defendant could probably
insist that the Wisconsin court apply Illinois law in regards to a suit on the
breach of a note shown to be executed in Illinois!
Just as the Federal courts rely upon the law of the appropriate state, one
state court may be required to apply the law of another state in respect of
a suit on an instrument controlled by the laws of another state.
In an case involving a note shown to be executed in Illinois and a mortgage
also shown to be executed in Illinois in respect of Wisconsin property, if
the suit was filed in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin court might be required to
apply Illinois law to the claim on the note and Wisconsin law to the claim
for foreclosure on the mortgage. The law of the forum state (Wisconsin)
would be applied to all procedural issues.
For that matter, if, after execution, the note was negotiated in yet another
place, such as New York, the law ofhte place of delivery of the instrument
would control the negotiation, which is considered to be a separate transaction!
If the borrower failed to argue the difference in law, the issue would
most likely be waived and Wisconsin's law would be applied to all issues.
I think that Seth is correct that the UCC is going to give pretty mush the
same result in both places. But there are some minor differences between
the states in application of laws relating to conditions precedent. Also,
bear in mind that most of the critical conditions are in the mortgage rather
than the note.