Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (2025)

Settlement of checks.

✓ 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

655.85 Settlement of checks.—If a check is forwarded or presented to a financial institution for payment, except when presented by the payee in person, the paying institution or remitting institution shall settle the amount of the check at par, at its option, in money or in exchange drawn on its reserve agent or agents in the City of New York or in any reserve city within the Sixth Federal Reserve District. The term “at par” applies only to the settlement of checks between collecting and paying or remitting institutions and does not apply to, or prohibit an institution from, deducting from the face amount of the check drawn on it a fee for paying the check if the check is presented to the institution by the payee in person. This section does not apply to the settlement of a check sent to such institution as a special collection item.

History.—s. 53, ch. 92-303; s. 12, ch. 2014-91.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case: Vida Baptista vs JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 640 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vida Baptista vs JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 640 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 7× “First, she alleged that Chase’s charging of a check-cashing service fee violated Fla. Stat. § 655.85 . Second, she brought a claim for unjust enrichment.”

Braham v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 170 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). · cites it 10× “We held that section 655.85, Florida Statutes (2009), prohibits a bank from charging such a fee.”

Steven J. Pincus v. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc., 986 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “Baptista asserted a violation of Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (1992), which provided that checks presented to paying 27 USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 28 of 31 institutions must be settled “at par,” and brought a claim for unjust enrichment based on the same facts as…”

Baptista v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 91 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). · cites it 18× “She claims that Appel-lee’s policy of charging a service fee to cash a check drawn on one of its accounts violates section 655.85, Florida Statutes (2009). That statutory provision requires *231 banks to settle all checks at par value, which means face value.”

In Re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 797 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 7× “Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (emphasis added). Under the NBA, however, banks are permitted to "exercise .”

Pereira v. Regions Bank, 918 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (M.D. Fla. 2013). · cites it 13× “Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (2012). Plaintiffs believe that this statute forbids any bank operating in Florida from charging a fee for cashing a check — in the language of the statute, deducting the amount of the fee from the “par” amount of the check and presenting the remainder to the…”

SCADIF, S.A. v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 208 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 655.85, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added); Id.”

Britt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 52 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). · cites it 4× “00 as a condition for cashing payroll checks (written by Britt’s employer, an account holder at the Bank), violates section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes (2008) (which provides that an institution may not settle any check drawn on it otherwise then at par).”

Luquetta v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 797 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 7× “Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (emphasis added). Under the NBA, however, banks are permitted to “exercise .”

Derek Pereira v. Regions Bank, 752 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2014). “” Fla. Stat. § 655.85 . 1 In Baptista v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.”

Pincus v. Speedpay, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (S.D. Fla. 2015). “In Baptista, the plaintiff challenged a fee a bank imposed for the immediate processing of a cheek in violation of Florida Statute § 655.85, which the Court found was preempted by the National Banking Act.”

Vida Baptista vs JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 7× “First, she alleged that Chase’s charging of a check-cashing service fee violated Fla. Stat. § 655.85 . Second, she brought a claim for unjust enrichment.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.