concurring.
I concur in the result and disagree with the implications of the majority’s language, “[w]e find no jurisprudence addressing whether operation of La.R.S. 10:3-407 extinguishes only the obligation evidenced by the eheek, i.e., $121.00, or whether alteration may extinguish the entirety of the underlying obligation,” as I believe no jurisprudence is necessary because the statute is unambiguous.