Florida Statute 670.203 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2024 Florida Statutes (including 2025 Special Session C)

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Chapter 670
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: FUNDS TRANSFERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 670.203

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 written agreement, 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.

History.—s. 1, ch. 91-70.

F.S. 670.203 on Google Scholar

F.S. 670.203 on CourtListener

Amendments to 670.203

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 670.203

Total Results: 2

Bancredit Cayman Ltd. v. Regions Bank Corp. (In Re Bancredit Cayman Ltd.)

419 B.R. 898, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 236, 70 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 545, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 3629, 52 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 121

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | Filed: Nov 6, 2009 | Docket: 1858118

Cited 1 times | Published

and Count XI for violation of Florida Statute § 670.203 remain. For the reasons set forth below, the court

Jesus Alonso Alvarez Rodriguez v. Branch Banking & Trust Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 26, 2022 | Docket: 64924993

Published

for the customer to po- lice its account.” Id. § 670.203 cmt. In other words, Florida made a policy choice