Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 68.06 (2025)
Actions upon negotiable and other instruments; consideration, etc.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
68.06 Actions upon negotiable and other instruments; consideration, etc.—All bonds, notes, covenants, deeds, bills of exchange, and other written instruments not under seal have the same force and effect (so far as the rules of pleading and evidence are concerned) as bonds and instruments under seal. The assignment or endorsement of any instrument vests the assignee or endorsee with the same rights, powers, and capacities as were possessed by the assignor or endorser. The assignee or endorsee may bring action thereon. It is not necessary for the plaintiff in any action on an instrument assignable by law to allege the consideration on which the instrument was given or on which the assignment or endorsement was made nor to prove the consideration or the execution of the instrument, unless it is denied by the defendant under oath. An executor or administrator may deny the execution or consideration by answer not under oath.
History.—ss. 24, 33, 36, Nov. 23, 1828; RS 1073; GS 1465; RGS 2664; CGL 4330; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 22, ch. 67-254.
Note.—Former s. 52.08.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1970–2013 · leading case: Palm Pt. Prop. Owners' v. Pisarski, 626 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1993).
Palm Pt. Prop. Owners' v. Pisarski, 626 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1993). “as bonds and instruments under seal. The assignment or endorsement of any instrument vests the assignee or endorsee with the same rights, powers, and capacities as were possessed by the assignor or endorser.”
Escandar v. S. Mgmt. & Inv. Corp., 534 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “As the surviving member of the joint venture, he would also have a right to pursue any cause of action belonging to the joint venture, subject in both instances to any defenses available to the management company, either against the joint venture or as to him, individually,…”
Cheek v. McGowan Elec. Supply Co., 483 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). “[10] Appellant does, however, quote the following from 7 Moore's Federal Practice § 68.06, which supports our decision: The above sentences in amended Rule 68 assure a party the right to make a second offer where the situation permits as, for example, where a prior offer was…”
Coplan Pipe & Supply Co. v. Ben-Frieda Corp., 256 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). “[3] , to the rights of a party who is a holder in due course without notice that an instrument is overdue, dishonored or subject to a defense.”
Windle v. Sebold, 241 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). “It may be that at the trial the defendant will be unable to offer any competent evidence to sustain such affirmative defense (the burden of proof of which appears to be on the defendant notwithstanding the statutory language found in Section 68.06, F.S. 1967, F.S.A. Biro v.…”
Wane v. Loan Corp., 926 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2013). “19 (a); (11) denial of consideration and execution pursuant to Florida Statute § 68.06; (12) ineffective endorsement and assignment of the Note and Mortgage; (13) Bank United, N.”
Dependable Ins. v. Riley, 6 Fla. Supp. 2d 64 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1984). “Appellant relies on Section 68.06 Fla. Stats., which provides, in part, as follows: “.”
Hernandez v. Trout Creek Dev. Corp., 779 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). “See § 68.06, Fla. Stat. (1997). The association’s authority to enforce the restrictions is based — not on the fact that it is a homeowners’ association — but rather on the right the Declaration gave to Trout Creek, which Trout Creek then assigned to the association.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.