670.204
Refund of payment and duty of customer to report with respect to unauthorized payment order.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
670.204 Refund of payment and duty of customer to report with respect to unauthorized payment order.—
(1) If 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 s. 670.202 or is not enforceable, in whole or in part, against the customer under s. 670.203, the bank shall refund any payment of the payment order received from the customer to the extent the bank is not entitled to enforce payment and shall pay interest on the refundable amount calculated from the date the bank received payment to the date of the refund. However, the customer is not entitled to interest from the bank on the amount to be refunded if the customer fails to exercise ordinary care to determine that the order was not authorized by the customer and to notify the bank of the relevant facts within a reasonable time not exceeding 90 days after the date the customer received notification from the bank that the order was accepted or that the customer’s account was debited with respect to the order. The bank is not entitled to any recovery from the customer on account of a failure by the customer to give notification as stated in this section.
(2) Reasonable time under subsection (1) may be fixed by agreement, but the obligation of a receiving bank to refund payment as stated in subsection (1) may not otherwise be varied by agreement.
History.—s. 1, ch. 91-70; s. 24, ch. 2007-134.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Anderson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. ex rel. BankAtlantic, LLC
Anderson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. ex rel. BankAtlantic, LLC (2015)
“Fla. Stat. § 670.204 (1) (emphasis added).”
Anderson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. (2014)
“Fla. Stat. § 670.204 (1). Thus, Article 4A imposes specific rights and duties on the parties when an unauthorized transfer has been effectuated, notably, return of the payment and interest on the refundable amount.”
Bensman v. Citicorp Trust, N.A. (2005)
“Bensman’s state law claim under Fla. Stat. § 670.204 is completely preempted by federal law (i.”
Roger Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A. (2012)
“Fla. Stat. § 670.204 . However, pursuant to § 202 the bank may shift the risk of loss to the customer by showing one of two things: (1) the “payment order received .”
Roger Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A. (2015)
“Chavez’s substantive claim was based, Fla. Stat. § 670.204 (1), forecloses an award of prejudgment interest in this case.”
Jesus Alonso Alvarez Rodriguez v. Branch Banking & Trust Company (2022)
“” Fla. Stat. § 670.204 (2). And Florida did not authorize modification to a “reasonable” period for the one- year period to which the 90-day period is directly related.”
Azure College, Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation (2022)
“Fla. Stat. § 670.204 is Not Applicable to ACH Debit Transactions Through section 670.”
Yel Co. Insurance v. Truist Bank (2026)
“2022) (citing Section 670.204)(1)). “If a bank accepts a payment order that isn't verified, then the bank ‘shall refund any payment’ and ‘shall pay interest on the refundable amount.”
MAYORAL v. SALIN (2021)
“Fla. Stat. § 670.204 . The Eleventh Circuit has interpreted this provision to “require[] a receiving or beneficiary bank to disgorge funds that it knew or should have known were obtained [fraudulently] when it accepted a wire transfer .”
Azure College, Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation (2022)
“204 of the Florida Statutes and that Defendant “must refund the money paid by the bank plus interest under § 670.204.” FAC ¶¶ 22–26. Count III asserts an alternative claim for negligence.”
Kazak and Kazak Real Estate v. Truist (2023)
“202, the language of the counts states that Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery and refund pursuant to § 670.204. (Doc. 34 at 170, 180). Truist makes no argument this section does not impose liability or Plaintiffs have not pled the requirements for that section, so the Court…”
— 670.204(1) — 1 case
Yel Co. Insurance v. Truist Bank (2026)
“2022) (citing Section 670.204)(1)). “If a bank accepts a payment order that isn't verified, then the bank ‘shall refund any payment’ and ‘shall pay interest on the refundable amount.”
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.