Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 670.203 (2025)
Unenforceability of certain 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
670.203 Unenforceability of certain verified payment orders.—
(1) If an accepted payment order is not, under s. 670.202(1), an authorized order of a customer identified as sender, but is effective as an order of the customer pursuant to s. 670.202(2), the following rules apply:
(a) By express agreement evidenced by a record, the receiving bank may limit the extent to which it is entitled to enforce or retain payment of the payment order.
(b) The receiving bank is not entitled to enforce or retain payment of the payment order if the customer proves that the order was not caused, directly or indirectly, by a person:
1. Who was entrusted at any time with duties to act for the customer with respect to payment orders or the security procedure; or
2. Who obtained access to transmitting facilities of the customer or who obtained, from a source controlled by the customer and without authority of the receiving bank, information facilitating breach of the security procedure, regardless of how the information was obtained or whether the customer was at fault. Information includes any access device, computer software, or the like.
(2) This section applies to amendments of payment orders to the same extent it applies to payment orders.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Bancredit Cayman Ltd. v. Regions Bank Corp. (In Re Bancredit Cayman Ltd.), 419 B.R. 898 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2009).
Bancredit Cayman Ltd. v. Regions Bank Corp. (In Re Bancredit Cayman Ltd.), 419 B.R. 898 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2009). “Only Counts I and II for breach of contract, Count VIII for accounting, Count X for turnover and Count XI for violation of Florida Statute § 670.203 remain. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that Defendant, as a matter of law, is entitled to summary judgment…”
Yel Co. Ins. v. Truist Bank (S.D. Fla. 2026). “204(1) requires Plaintiff to allege (1) that the receiving bank accepted a payment order issued in the name of the customer, (2) the payment order was not enforceable under Section 670.203, and (3) damages. See Section 670.”
— 670.203(1)(b) — 1 case
Yel Co. Ins. v. Truist Bank (S.D. Fla. 2026). “204(1) requires Plaintiff to allege (1) that the receiving bank accepted a payment order issued in the name of the customer, (2) the payment order was not enforceable under Section 670.203, and (3) damages. See Section 670.”
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.