Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 670.202 (2025)

Authorized and verified payment orders.

✓ 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

670.202 Authorized and verified payment orders.—

(1) A payment order received by the receiving bank is the authorized order of the person identified as sender if that person authorized the order or is otherwise bound by it under the law of agency.

(2) If a bank and its customer have agreed that the authenticity of payment orders issued to the bank in the name of the customer as sender will be verified pursuant to a security procedure, a payment order received by the receiving bank is effective as the order of the customer, whether or not authorized, if the security procedure is a commercially reasonable method of providing security against unauthorized payment orders and the bank proves that it accepted the payment order in good faith and in compliance with the bank’s obligations under the security procedure and any agreement or instruction of the customer, evidenced by a record, restricting acceptance of payment orders issued in the name of the customer. The bank is not required to follow an instruction that violates an agreement with the customer, evidenced by a record, or notice of which is not received at a time and in a manner affording the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before the payment order is accepted.

(3) The commercial reasonableness of a security procedure is a question of law to be determined by considering the wishes of the customer expressed to the bank; the circumstances of the customer known to the bank, including the size, type, and frequency of payment orders normally issued by the customer to the bank; alternative security procedures offered to the customer; and security procedures in general use by customers and receiving banks similarly situated. A security procedure is deemed to be commercially reasonable if:

(a) The security procedure was chosen by the customer after the bank offered, and the customer refused, a security procedure that was commercially reasonable for that customer; and

(b) The customer expressly agreed in a record to be bound by any payment order, whether or not authorized, issued in its name and accepted by the bank in compliance with the bank’s obligations under the security procedure chosen by the customer.

(4) The term “sender” in this chapter includes the customer in whose name a payment order is issued if the order is the authorized order of the customer under subsection (1), or it is effective as the order of the customer under subsection (2).

(5) This section applies to amendments and cancellations of payment orders to the same extent it applies to payment orders.

(6) Except as provided in this section and in s. 670.203(1)(a), rights and obligations arising under this section or s. 670.203 may not be varied by agreement.

History.—s. 1, ch. 91-70; s. 24, ch. 2025-92.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Roger Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., 701 F.3d 896 (11th Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roger Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., 701 F.3d 896 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 5× “24 Case: 11-15804 Date Filed: 11/27/2012 Page: 25 of 26 Fla. Stat. § 670.202 (3). All of these factors weigh in favor of a finding of commercial reasonableness.”

Anderson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. ex rel. BankAtlantic, LLC, 119 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 4× “See Fla. Stat. § 670.202 (l)-(2). Ultimately, these provisions are irrelevant, so long as the bank has properly provided notice of the debit, the repose period in § 670.”

Anderson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2014). · cites it 8× “While it is true that a payment order is deemed authorized if the sender was an agent of the authorized individual, see Fla. Stat. § 670.202 (1) (“A payment order received by the receiving bank is the authorized order of the person identified as sender if that person authorized…”

Bensman v. Citicorp Trust, N.A., 354 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2005). “204 specifically provides, in relevant part: [i]f a receiving bank accepts a payment order issued in the name of its customer as sender which is not authorized and not effective as the order of the customer under section 670.202 or is not enforceable, in whole or in part,…”

Coast to Coast Supply Solutions, LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp. (M.D. Fla. 2020). · cites it 7× “Count I alleges a claim for breach of contract; Count II for breach of implied contract; Count III for negligence; Count IV for violation of § 670.202(2), F.S.; and Count V for violation of § 670.”

Yel Co. Ins. v. Truist Bank (S.D. Fla. 2026). · cites it 4× “Defendant first asserts that Plaintiff did not address the “threshold inquiry” as required under Section 670.202 to sufficiently allege a violation of Chapter 670, Florida Statutes claim.”

Doherty v. Regions Bank (M.D. Fla. 2019). · cites it 3× “Fla. Stat. § 670.202 (2). Regions Bank contends that Plaintiff’s negligence claim is preempted by the U.”

Kazak & Kazak Real Est. v. Truist (M.D. Fla. 2023). · cites it 2× “§§ 670.202 (2) and (3). Kazak Real Estate alleges a further count of negligence.”

Kazak & Kazak Real Est. v. Truist (M.D. Fla. 2024). · cites it 2× “with security procedures required under Fla. Stat. § 670.202 (2) and (3). (See Doc.”

Igv Elevator Us, Inc. v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (S.D. Fla. 2025). · cites it 2× “” Fla. Stat. § 670.202 (1). And under Article 4A, once a receiving bank accepts an authorized payment order, it is obligated to execute the order according to the sender’s instructions.”

Azure Coll., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “§ 670.202(2). For purposes of the statute, a “sender” is “the person giving the instruction to the receiving bank.”

— 670.202(2) — 4 cases

Coast to Coast Supply Solutions, LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp. (M.D. Fla. 2020). “Count I alleges a claim for breach of contract; Count II for breach of implied contract; Count III for negligence; Count IV for violation of § 670.202(2), F.S.; and Count V for violation of § 670.”

Doherty v. Regions Bank (M.D. Fla. 2019). “Fla. Stat. § 670.202 (2). Regions Bank contends that Plaintiff’s negligence claim is preempted by the U.”

Azure Coll., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “§ 670.202(2). For purposes of the statute, a “sender” is “the person giving the instruction to the receiving bank.”

Yel Co. Ins. v. Truist Bank (S.D. Fla. 2026). “Defendant first asserts that Plaintiff did not address the “threshold inquiry” as required under Section 670.202 to sufficiently allege a violation of Chapter 670, Florida Statutes claim.”

— 670.202(3) — 1 case

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.