A party seeking holder-in-due-course status, however, bears the burden of proving that it accepted a check in good faith and without notice of personal claims. See Nida v. Michael, 191 N.W.2d 151, 153-54 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993); King v. C.B. Todd Sons, 16 N.W.2d 709, 712 (Mich. 1944) (pre-Code). Although the proofs are insufficient to show that the Bank was complicit in aiding and abetting Cyberco's fraud, Huntington has not borne its heavy burden of showing that the proofs are so one-sided that the Bank must prevail on its claims of good faith and lack of notice in the circumstances of this case.