S. Contract Carpe, Inc. v. Cty. Nat. Bk. of S. Fla., 528 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
S. Contract Carpe, Inc. v. Cty. Nat. Bk. of S. Fla., 528 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rosen v. Rosen (fla, 1997-04-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rosen v. Rosen
Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
Rosen IV, 528 So.2d at 42 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harvey v. First National Bank of Powell
Wyo. · 1996 · confidence medium
Louis, 805 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Mo.Ct.App.1991); Provident Savings Bank, 504 A.2d at 138 ; Southern Contract Carpet, Inc. v. County National *87 Bank of South Florida, 528 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988); Rascar, Inc. v. Bank of Oregon, 87 Wis.2d 446 , 275 N.W.2d 108, 111 (App.1978); Pine Bluff National Bank v. Kesterson, 257 Ark. 813 , 520 S.W.2d 253, 258 (1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Knight Communications, Inc. v. Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis
Mo. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Florida: Burdine-Coakley v. Capital Bank, 542 So.2d 1019, 1020 (Fla.App.1989); Southern Contract Carpet, Inc. v. County National Bank of South Florida, 528 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla.App.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kuwait Airways Corporation v. American Security Bank, N.A. And First American Bank, N.A. (2×)
1st Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Furthermore, since that opinion, there has been substantial authority rejecting the view announced in G & R Corp. See, e.g., Southern Contract Carpet, Inc. v. County Nat'l Bank, 528 So.2d 42, 43-44 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988); First Nat'l Bank v. La Sara Grain Co., 646 S.W.2d 246, 251-52 (Tex.Ct.App.1982), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 673 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.1984) (affirming interpretation of Sec. 4-406); Rascar, Inc. v. Bank of Oregon, 87 Wis.2d 446 , 275 N.W.2d 108 , 111 & n. 1 (1978); King of All Mfg., Inc. v. Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Co., 69 Mich.App. 490 , 245 N.W.2d 104 (1976); Fireman's F…
cited Cited "see" B B Corp. v. Lafayette Am. bank/trust, No. Cv93 30 98 76 S (May 20, 1994)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Southern Contract Carpet, Inc. v. County National Bank of South Florida , supra, 44.
cited Cited "see" Gray v. Lauscher
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rosen v. Rosen, 528 So.2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kreiser v. Kreiser, 505 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Penland v. Penland, 442 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shiveley v. Shiveley
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Rosen v. Rosen, 528 So.2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied mem., 537 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1988) (trial court may consider income from gift which has already been received) with Bedell v. Bedell, 583 So.2d 1005, 1008 (Fla. 1991) ("[f]or the purpose of demonstrating need in dissolution or modification proceedings, the fact that one of the parties is surviving through the largess of her family is legally irrelevant").
SOUTHERN CONTRACT CARPET, INC., Appellant,
v.
COUNTY NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, Appellee.
87-2144.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jun 21, 1988.
528 So. 2d 42
Schwartz, C.J., and Nesbitt and Daniel S. Pearson.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

[*43] Diane H. Tutt, Litman, Muchnick, Wasserman & Hartman, Hollywood, for appellant.

Mamber & Savage and Steven M. Singer, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

On May 10, 1983, although the deposit agreement with the appellant, Southern Contract Carpet, Inc., provided that withdrawals from its account could be made only by two required signatures, Jack Herman and Dorothy Herman, the appellee bank permitted a cash withdrawal of $35,000 on the basis of a withdrawal slip which contained only the signature of Dorothy Herman. On August 12, 1985, more than a year after Southern Contract had received a bank statement showing this withdrawal, it brought the instant suit against the bank for recovery of the $35,000. The lower court entered judgment for the defendant on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations contained in section 674.406(4), Florida Statutes (1985) (section 4-406(4) of the Uniform Commercial Code):

(4) Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank a customer who does not within 1 year from the time the statement and items are made available to the customer (subsection (1)) discover and report his unauthorized signature or any alteration on the face or back of the item ... is precluded from asserting against the bank such unauthorized signature or indorsement or such alteration.

The appellant contends that this provision is inapplicable essentially because the signature of Dorothy Herman was in itself an authorized signature and that the term "unauthorized" refers only to forged or altered signatures;[1] it claims that the pertinent statute of limitations is the five year provision for actions arising out of a simple breach of contract, the agreement with the bank establishing the account. See § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). We do not agree with this position and accordingly affirm the judgment below.

Our holding that the single-signature-when-two-are-required is an "unauthorized" one for 674.406(4) purposes is based largely on our interpretation of the most obviously pertinent source, the specific definition of the term in the UCC itself. Section 671.201(43), Florida Statutes (1985) states:

(43) `Unauthorized' signature or indorsement means one made without actual, implied or apparent authority and includes a forgery.

It seems quite clear that this definition includes the present situation in which only one of the two Hermans was "unauthorized" by the depositor corporation to withdraw, and the bank was "unauthorized" to[*44] pay Southern Contract's money from its account. Provident Savs. Bank v. United Jersey Bank, 207 N.J. Super. 303, 504 A.2d 135 (Law Div. 1985); Rascar, Inc. v. Bank of Oregon, 87 Wis.2d 446, 275 N.W.2d 108 (Ct.App. 1978); see Jewett v. Mfgs. Hanover Trust Co., 48 Misc.2d 1094, 266 N.Y.S.2d 607 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1965); cf. Parent Teacher Ass'n Public School 72 v. Mfgs. Hanover Trust Co., 138 Misc.2d 289, 293, 524 N.Y.S.2d 336, 339 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1988). Even more clearly, the fact that an unauthorized signature includes a forgery is directly contrary to the appellant's position that, for practical purposes, only forgeries qualify under 674.406(4). While there is a wide split of authority on this precise point, we naturally enough believe that our conclusion is in accordance with the better reasoned decisions and texts which have considered the issue. Pine Bluff Nat'l Bank v. Kesterson, 257 Ark. 813, 520 S.W.2d 253 (1975); King-of-All Mfg., Inc. v. Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Co., 69 Mich. App. 490, 245 N.W.2d 104 (1976); Jacoby Transport Systems, Inc. v. Continental Bank, 277 Pa.Super. 440, 419 A.2d 1227 (1980); Rascar, Inc. v. Bank of Oregon, 87 Wis.2d at 446, 275 N.W.2d at 108. Contra, e.g., G & R Corp. v. American Security & Trust Co., 523 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir.1975); In re Florida Airlines, Inc., 57 B.R. 113 (M.D.Fla. 1986); Wolfe v. University Nat'l Bank, 270 Md. 70, 310 A.2d 558 (1973). As is said in King-of-All Mfg., referring to the contrary authority:

We recognize that both the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in G & R Corp. v. American Security & Trust Co., D.C. Cir., 523 F.2d 1164 (1975), and the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in Wolfe v. University National Bank, 270 Md. 70, 310 A.2d 558 (1973), have refused to apply UCC § 4-406(4) when situations analogous to the present one were before them. Both courts, however, failed to grasp that the signature referred to in § 4-406(4) is the signature of the customer who alleges that his account has been improperly debited. The Wolfe opinion has been soundly criticized, see 6D Willier & Hart UCC Reporter-Digest, § 4-406, A16; Clark & Squillante, The Law of Bank Deposits, Collections and Credit Cards, 1975 Cum.Supp., pp. 3-4.

King-of-All Mfg., 69 Mich. App. at 493, 245 N.W.2d at 105.

Since the action was commenced beyond the period provided by the thus applicable terms of section 674.406(4), the judgment below is

Affirmed.

1 The appellant also contends that the signature of Dorothy Herman was forged but concedes its inability to succeed in this contention under any possible view, including its own, of section 674.406(4).