Jack and Jill Slick borrowed $5000 from Fast Cash Loans. They executed and delivered a promissory note in the amount of$5000 to Fast Cash. After receiving the note, Fast Cash issued a check to “Jack Slick and Jill Slick”. Both parties indorsed the check and it was cashed. Shortly thereafter, Jack and Jill got divorced. Jill now claims (1) she never saw or used the money and (2) Fast Cash understood that all the money went to her ex-husband Jack, who was later declared bankrupt. When the note became due after four years, Jill refused to pay it. Fast Cash sued her, seeking payment as a holder in due course (HDC). Jill claimed that Fast Cash was not a HDC in regard to her because she never received consideration for the note and, therefore, did not take the note for value. Who wins?