Florida Statute 68.65 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 68
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 68.065

68.065 Actions to collect worthless payment instruments; attorney fees and collection costs.—

(1) As used in this section, the term “payment instrument” or “instrument” means a check, draft, order of payment, debit card order, or electronic funds transfer.

(2) In lieu of a service charge authorized under subsection (3), s. 832.062(4)(a), or s. 832.07, the payee of a payment instrument, the payment of which is refused by the drawee because of lack of funds, lack of credit, or lack of an account, or where the maker or drawer stops payment on the instrument with intent to defraud, may lawfully collect bank fees actually incurred by the payee in the course of tendering the payment, plus a service charge of $25 if the face value does not exceed $50; $30 if the face value exceeds $50 but does not exceed $300; $40 if the face value exceeds $300; or 5 percent of the face value of the payment instrument, whichever is greater. The right to damages under this subsection may be claimed without the filing of a civil action.

(3)(a) In any civil action brought for the purpose of collecting a payment instrument, the payment of which is refused by the drawee because of lack of funds, lack of credit, or lack of an account, or where the maker or drawer stops payment on the instrument with intent to defraud, and where the maker or drawer fails to pay the amount owing, in cash, to the payee within 30 days after a written demand therefor, as provided in subsection (4), the maker or drawer is liable to the payee, in addition to the amount owing upon such payment instrument, for damages of triple the amount so owing. However, in no case shall the liability for damages be less than $50. The maker or drawer is also liable for any court costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by the payee in taking the action. Criminal sanctions, as provided in s. 832.07, may be applicable.

(b) The payee may also charge the maker or drawer of the payment instrument a service charge not to exceed the service fees authorized under s. 832.08(5) or 5 percent of the face amount of the instrument, whichever is greater, when making written demand for payment. In the event that a judgment or decree is rendered, interest at the rate and in the manner described in s. 55.03 may be added toward the total amount due. Any bank fees incurred by the payee may be charged to the maker or drawer of the payment instrument.

(4) Before recovery under subsection (3) may be claimed, a written demand must be delivered by certified or registered mail, evidenced by return receipt, or by first-class mail, evidenced by an affidavit of service of mail, to the maker or drawer of the payment instrument to the address on the instrument, to the address given by the drawer at the time the instrument was issued, or to the drawer’s last known address. The form of such notice shall be substantially as follows:

“You are hereby notified that a check, draft, order of payment, debit card order, or electronic funds transfer numbered in the face amount of $ issued by you on (date) , drawn upon (name of bank) , and payable to , has been dishonored. Pursuant to Florida law, you have 30 days from receipt of this notice to tender payment in cash of the full amount of the dishonored payment instrument, plus a service charge of $25 if the face value does not exceed $50, $30 if the face value exceeds $50 but does not exceed $300, $40 if the face value exceeds $300, or 5 percent of the face amount of the dishonored instrument, whichever is greater, the total amount due being $ and cents. Unless this amount is paid in full within the 30-day period, the holder of the dishonored payment instrument may file a civil action against you for three times the amount of the dishonored instrument, but in no case less than $50, in addition to the payment of the dishonored instrument plus any court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and any bank fees incurred by the payee in taking the action.”

(5) A subsequent person receiving a payment instrument from the original payee or a successor endorsee has the same rights that the original payee has against the maker of the instrument, if such subsequent person gives notice in a substantially similar form to that provided in subsection (4). A subsequent person providing such notice is immune from civil liability for the giving of such notice and for proceeding under the forms of such notice, so long as the maker of the instrument has the same defenses against the subsequent person as against the original payee. However, the remedies available under this section may be exercised only by one party in interest.

(6) After commencement of the action but before the hearing, the maker or drawer may tender to the payee, as satisfaction of the claim, an amount of money equal to the sum of the payment instrument, the service charge, court costs, and incurred bank fees. Other provisions notwithstanding, the maker or drawer is liable to the payee for all attorney fees and collection costs incurred by payee as a result of the payee’s claim.

(7) If the court or jury determines that the failure of the maker or drawer to satisfy the dishonored payment instrument was due to economic hardship, the court or jury has the discretion to waive all or part of the statutory damages.

History.—s. 2, ch. 79-345; s. 1, ch. 86-89; s. 41, ch. 88-381; s. 1, ch. 89-303; s. 1, ch. 91-211; s. 1, ch. 96-239; s. 1, ch. 98-297; s. 1, ch. 2001-243; s. 1, ch. 2003-69; s. 1, ch. 2013-113.

F.S. 68.065 on Google Scholar

F.S. 68.065 on CourtListener

Amendments to 68.065

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 68.065

Total Results: 49

Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. Por A. v. Lama

633 F.3d 1330

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 24, 2011 | Docket: 1960895

Cited 271 times | Published

its statutory worthless check claim, Fla. Stat. § 68.065. Under both claims the plaintiff would receive

Camerota v. Kaufman

666 So. 2d 1042, 1996 WL 34030

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 1996 | Docket: 452480

Cited 9 times | Published

and significant attorney's fees pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (1993), governing actions

Serna v. Milanese, Inc.

643 So. 2d 36, 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 980, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9017, 1994 WL 511207

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 1994 | Docket: 1493131

Cited 6 times | Published

court granted Milanese's motion and pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (1991)[2] ordered Serna to

Sanders Farm of Ocala, Inc. v. Bay Area Truck Sales, Inc.

235 So. 3d 1010

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2017 | Docket: 60286093

Cited 5 times | Published

complaint against Sanders alleging a count under section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2015), to recover treble

Wassman v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.

797 So. 2d 626, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14459, 2001 WL 1219492

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2001 | Docket: 1359846

Cited 5 times | Published

recover on the dishonored check pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (1995). The claim against

Sumner Group, Inc. v. MC DISTRIBUTEC

949 So. 2d 1205, 2007 WL 675326

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2007 | Docket: 1719911

Cited 4 times | Published

attorney's fees under both the worthless check statute, § 68.065, Fla. Stat. (2005), and under the written agreement

Maung v. National Stamping, LLC

842 So. 2d 214, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4407, 2003 WL 1721937

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 2, 2003 | Docket: 1730521

Cited 4 times | Published

pursuant to the civil worthless check statute, section 68.065, Florida Statutes (1999), filed against him

Kehle v. Modansky

696 So. 2d 493, 1997 WL 362847

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1997 | Docket: 1325891

Cited 4 times | Published

appellant's tender of a worthless check pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes. Because there were no genuine

Zucker v. SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY

589 So. 2d 454, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11445, 1991 WL 241190

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 1991 | Docket: 1441782

Cited 4 times | Published

Sears was awarded treble damages pursuant to section 68.065(1), Florida Statutes (1989)[1] and prejudgment

Maulden v. Corbin

537 So. 2d 1085, 1989 WL 3903

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 20, 1989 | Docket: 427160

Cited 4 times | Published

Corbin based upon his contract and Maulden under section 68.065, Florida Statutes, based upon her successful

OCALA JOCKEY CLUB, LLC v. Rogers

981 So. 2d 1245, 2008 WL 2064661

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 16, 2008 | Docket: 2105196

Cited 3 times | Published

worthless check statute, section 68.065(1), were under consideration. Section 68.065(1) specifically provides

Alvarez v. Alvarez

800 So. 2d 280, 2001 WL 1230550

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2001 | Docket: 1283278

Cited 3 times | Published

prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (1995). This matter proceeded

Ira Mex v. Southeastern Interior Const.

777 So. 2d 1107, 2001 WL 76755

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2001 | Docket: 462091

Cited 3 times | Published

attorney's fees, and other relief pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (1999), which provides for

Designed Flooring Distributors, Inc. v. Wagenti (In Re Wagenti)

110 B.R. 602, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 249

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | Filed: Feb 7, 1990 | Docket: 1799416

Cited 3 times | Published

be made by a payee pursuant to Florida Statue, § 68.065, which provides for no such exception. Secondly

Diaz v. Bell MicroProducts-Future Tech, Inc.

43 So. 3d 138, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12408, 2010 WL 3324440

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2010 | Docket: 60295411

Cited 2 times | Published

refused payment; and thereafter, pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2006), the plaintiff made

Valliappan v. Cruz

917 So. 2d 257, 2005 WL 3411797

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2005 | Docket: 1509494

Cited 2 times | Published

returned, Cruz's attorney demanded $180,000 under section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2004), regarding bad checks

Krueger v. Ponton

6 So. 3d 1258, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2249, 2009 WL 632087

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 2009 | Docket: 60299763

Cited 1 times | Published

treble damages for a bad check pursuant to section 68.065 of the Florida Statutes (2004). According to

Titan Cruise Lines v. Elliot (In Re Titan Cruise Lines)

353 B.R. 919, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 47, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 2529, 47 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 55, 2006 WL 2848592

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 2006 | Docket: 1104833

Cited 1 times | Published

a Worthless instrument, brought pursuant to Section 68.065 of the Florida Statutes. The Debtor contends

F & A Dairy Products, Inc. v. Imperial Food Distributors, Inc.

798 So. 2d 803, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15031, 2001 WL 1267232

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 2001 | Docket: 64809817

Cited 1 times | Published

Corporation (Palm Coast), sued Palm Coast under section 68.065(1), Florida Statutes (1999). That section provides

In Re Apache Trading Group, Inc.

210 B.R. 869, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 50, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1042

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | Filed: Jul 8, 1997 | Docket: 1828224

Cited 1 times | Published

damages pursuant to Florida Statute § 68.065. Even if Florida Statute § 68.065 applied to Mr. Handy's joinder

NASR International Trading Co. v. Rahul International Inc.

675 So. 2d 704, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6765, 1996 WL 347011

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1996 | Docket: 64765461

Cited 1 times | Published

raised on appeal. On the cross-appeal, however, section 68.065(1), Florida Statutes (1991), requires an award

Krontz v. Feiler

553 So. 2d 1302, 1989 WL 149624

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 1989 | Docket: 1258567

Cited 1 times | Published

One count of the complaint made a claim under section 68.065, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), alleging that

Fischer v. Rodriguez-Capriles

472 So. 2d 1315, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1743, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17485

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 1985 | Docket: 1793991

Cited 1 times | Published

and erroneous, and the award of fees under section 68.065 cannot be determined until there is a finding

U.S. Alliance Management Corp., Etc. v. Apeiron Miami, LLC, Etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 2025 | Docket: 70572346

Published

of the worthless check count, we affirm. See § 68.065(6), Fla. Stat. (2018); see also F & A Dairy

Saad Remodeling & Custom Home Builders, Inc. and Saad Home, Inc. v. Reyes FC Services Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2023 | Docket: 68103699

Published

work done. The complaint sought relief under section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2018). 1 1 One of the checks

JOHN WOLF and VICTORIA WOLF v. PETER M. HABASHY, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 2023 | Docket: 67419178

Published

check in the amount of $8,283, pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2021). On the same day that

ALL MY SONS MOVING & STORAGE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. v. A & E TRUCK SERVICE, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 2022 | Docket: 65370804

Published

alleged a worthless instrument claim under section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2019).1 On that count,

PRONTOCASH, LLC v. THE AUTOBOUTIQUE OF MIAMI, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2021 | Docket: 61601889

Published

payment on two worthless checks pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes, and for violation of the

BEO MANAGEMENT CORP. v. JORGE M. CABALLE HORTA, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 2020 | Docket: 18642912

Published

issuance of a worthless check, pursuant to section 68.065 of the Florida Statutes; (ii) to pierce the

They Might Be, Inc. v. Carter (In re Carter)

593 B.R. 354

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 10, 2018 | Docket: 65790952

Published

000 (plus fees and costs), as permitted under Section 68.065, Florida Statutes. On advice of counsel, the

Infrax Systems, Inc. v. Wood

155 So. 3d 426, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 100, 2015 WL 72260

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 7, 2015 | Docket: 2621516

Published

ages and processing fees awarded under section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2011), because there was

Sarras v. Mills-Sarras

161 So. 3d 509, 2014 WL 3871235, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12146

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 8, 2014 | Docket: 60247189

Published

founded upon the statutory liability specified in section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2007) and, thus, the four-year

Baggett v. Clark

161 So. 3d 491, 2014 WL 2968834, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10241

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 2014 | Docket: 60247177

Published

then brought an action against Baggett under section 68.065, Florida Statutes, seeking damages for the

Big Bang Miami Entertainment, LLC v. Moumina

137 So. 3d 1117, 83 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 306, 2014 WL 1230504, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4411

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2014 | Docket: 60240174

Published

and Ojeda for issuing the worthless checks.1 See § 68.065(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013) (providing that the maker

Hutson v. Plantation Open MRI, LLC

66 So. 3d 1042, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12212, 2011 WL 3300213

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2011 | Docket: 60301820

Published

hardship caused by Plantation MRI’s actions. Section 68.065(6), Florida Statutes, provides that “[i]f the

Molinos Valle Del Cibao v. Oscar R. Lama

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 24, 2011 | Docket: 2906566

Published

its statutory worthless check claim, Fla. Stat. § 68.065. Under both claims the plaintiff would receive

In re Revisions to Simplified Forms Pursuant to Rule 10-2.1(a) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar

50 So. 3d 503, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 216, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 568, 2010 WL 1488111

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 15, 2010 | Docket: 60297315

Published

of $-(not to exceed the amount prescribed by Section 68.065, Florida Stat- 5. MONEY DUE PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY

Schneider v. Slichter

917 So. 2d 299, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20063, 2005 WL 3478175

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2005 | Docket: 64841577

Published

their bad check claim básed on a violation of section 68.065, Florida Statutes. The case involves the sale

Madness, L.P. v. DiTocco Konstruction, Inc.

873 So. 2d 427, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5487, 2004 WL 840254

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2004 | Docket: 64830659

Published

damages for lost profits as well as damages under section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2001), in the amount of

Paramount v. Gilbert

867 So. 2d 642, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3316, 2004 WL 515539

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2004 | Docket: 64828687

Published

PER CURIAM. Pursuant to section 68.065(1), Florida Statutes (2001), appellant Velecta Paramount brought

Paramount v. Gilbert

867 So. 2d 642, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3316, 2004 WL 515539

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2004 | Docket: 64828687

Published

PER CURIAM. Pursuant to section 68.065(1), Florida Statutes (2001), appellant Velecta Paramount brought

Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. v. Patel

869 So. 2d 59, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2818, 2004 WL 444532

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 2004 | Docket: 64829117

Published

made demand under the worthless check statute, section 68.065, Florida Statutes (2001). The plaintiff argues

Uribe v. Correa

862 So. 2d 883, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19201, 2003 WL 22956429

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 2003 | Docket: 64827310

Published

worthless checks and imposing treble damages under Section 68.065 Florida Statutes (2002), and remand this matter

Florida Bar re Revisions to Simplified Forms, Pursuant to Rule 10-2.1(a)

774 So. 2d 611, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 570, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1458, 2000 WL 963832

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2000 | Docket: 64802723

Published

exceed the amount prescribed by Florida Statutes section 68.065). 5.MONEY DUE PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. Tenant shall

C & S Computers, Inc. v. Bodensiek

662 So. 2d 1383, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12506, 1995 WL 699823

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 1995 | Docket: 64760217

Published

the basis of economic hardship pursuant to section 68.065(6), Florida Statutes (1993).1 Because we conclude

Zaleski v. Woessner

659 So. 2d 716, 27 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 515, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9248, 1995 WL 516439

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 1, 1995 | Docket: 64758471

Published

damages, attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (1993). The causes of action

Diulus v. Hanley

640 So. 2d 1251, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7997, 1994 WL 419638

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1994 | Docket: 64750106

Published

Diuluses, notifying them that, pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes, they had seven days after

L & F Partners, Ltd. v. Miceli

561 So. 2d 1227, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3037, 1990 WL 57817

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1990 | Docket: 64650808

Published

brought both counts III and IV pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (1987).2 Miceli stated in

Medina v. Lamonica

492 So. 2d 809, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1765, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9264

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1986 | Docket: 64621039

Published

not awarding him attorney’s fees pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes (1981). This contention is