the bank actually labeled the CD as “nontransferable” for reasons relating to such reserve and reporting requirements. But it does show that a “nontransferable” legend, by its very terms, does not necessarily preclude a depositor from transferring the CD to third parties in the ordinary course of business. Read & Lundy next argues that even if we adopt the majority view, the bank did not present sufficient evidence to establish that CDs, such as this one, that the bank stamped as “nontransferable” were nonetheless transferred and transferable in the ordinary course of business. We disagree because “[t]he question of whether a particular document qualifies as an instrument under the U.C.C. is a question of law.” In re Coral Petroleum, Inc., 50 B.R. 830, 837, 838 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1985) (<HOLDING>). The test for transferability is “what
recognizing limits on the erisa preemption clause holding the district courts decision not to allow an expert to rely on a note found in a hospital record was within the courts discretion because the court found that the note was too unreliable to be used as the basis for an expert opinion recognizing that an expert may rely on an article because it is the expert who determines based on study and experience whether the article is reliable holding that nonnegotiable note qualified as an article 9 instrument despite the limits on its transferability holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage