Florida Statute 655.85 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXVIII
BANKS AND BANKING

Chapter 655
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS GENERALLY

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 655.85

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.

F.S. 655.85 on Google Scholar

F.S. 655.85 on CourtListener

Amendments to 655.85

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 655.85

Total Results: 13

Vida Baptista vs JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

640 F.3d 1194, 2011 WL 1772657

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 11, 2011 | Docket: 586971

Cited 12 times | Published

check-cashing service fee violated Fla. Stat. § 655.85. Second, she brought a claim for unjust enrichment

SCADIF, S.A. v. First Union National Bank

208 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 48 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 232, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12962, 2002 WL 1473458

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2002 | Docket: 2449794

Cited 5 times | Published

such institution as a special collection item. § 655.85, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added); Id. [14] The Supreme

Braham v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

170 So. 3d 844, 87 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 18, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9987, 2015 WL 4002385

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 2015 | Docket: 60249521

Cited 3 times | Published

controversy involving similar facts. We held that section 655.85, Florida Statutes (2009), prohibits a bank

Derek Pereira v. Regions Bank

752 F.3d 1354, 2014 WL 2219166, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10040

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 30, 2014 | Docket: 2901827

Cited 2 times | Published

drawn on it otherwise than at par.” Fla. Stat. § 655.85. 1 In Baptista v. JPMorgan Chase

Pincus v. Speedpay, Inc.

161 F. Supp. 3d 1150, 2015 WL 5820808, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136254

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2015 | Docket: 64306834

Cited 1 times | Published

processing of a cheek in violation of Florida Statute § 655.85, which the Court found was preempted by the National

In Re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation

797 F. Supp. 2d 1312

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2011 | Docket: 1992244

Cited 1 times | Published

causes of action for recovery: 1) violation of Section 655.85, Florida Statutes; and 2) unjust enrichment

Steven J. Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 2, 2021 | Docket: 58973234

Published

Baptista asserted a violation of Fla. Stat. § 655.85 (1992), which provided that checks presented to

Pereira v. Regions Bank

918 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 2013 WL 265314, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9418

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 2, 2013 | Docket: 65988176

Published

state court: (1) violation of Florida Statute § 655.85, which states, in part, “an institution may not

Asencio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

905 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 2012 WL 5900897, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166374

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2012 | Docket: 65986557

Published

Baptista (affirming district court's ruling that section 655.85, Florida Statutes, was preempted by federal

Baptista v. PNC Bank, National Ass'n

91 So. 3d 230, 2012 WL 2359652, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10097, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1484

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 2012 | Docket: 60309848

Published

check drawn on one of its accounts violates section 655.85, Florida Statutes (2009). That statutory provision

Luquetta v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

797 F. Supp. 2d 1312

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2011 | Docket: 65974757

Published

causes of action for recovery: 1) violation of Section 655.85, Florida Statutes; and 2) unjust enrichment

Vida Baptista vs JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 11, 2011 | Docket: 587511

Published

check-cashing service fee violated Fla. Stat. § 655.85. Second, she brought a claim for unjust enrichment

Britt v. Bank of America, N.A.

52 So. 3d 809, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 95, 2011 WL 111423

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 2011 | Docket: 2407438

Published

employer, an account holder at the Bank), violates section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes (2008) (which provides