Matthew Wiggins, Jr., filed a suit on January 14, 2015, seeking payment from Christopher Janousek and Madeleine Griffin for a promissory note that matured in April 2010. The defendants, in this case, argued that the statute of limitations barred Wiggins from collecting the payment. The crux of the matter is if the note is a negotiable instrument, which has a six-year statute of limitations, or if it is non-negotiable in which case it has a four-year statute of limitations. The relevant provisions of the note are as follow: “FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Matthew D. Wiggins the sum of Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000) together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum on the unpaid balance.” This provision is followed by handwritten terms that state “Interest accrues only after cash advance; date; Interest only payable on the 1st day of month; No pre-payment penalty; Total amount due on 4/1/10.” Finally, the note states “All payments shall be first applied to interest and the balance to principal. All pre-payments shall be applied in reverse order of maturity. This note may be prepaid, at any time, in whole or part, without penalty.” Does this agreement fulfill the Sum Certain in Money element of negotiable instruments? How did the court rule and what was its reasoning?