CopyCited 19 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 299669
...that only one transfer was intended. By that time, Silva had withdrawn the proceeds of both wire transfers. [2] When Ocean Bank refused to repay $72,972.00 to Corfan Bank, this litigation ensued. Corfan Bank proceeded on two claims, one based on the section 670.207, Florida Statutes (1995), which codifies as Florida law section 4A-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and one based on common law negligence....
...claim was precluded by the preemptive statutory scheme. The trial court, emphasizing that Florida's adoption of the UCC sections concerning wire transfers did not abrogate the basic tenets of commercial law, found that Ocean Bank had not contravened section 670.207 by crediting the erroneous March 22nd wire transfer to Silva's account....
...Bank must bear that loss and, therefore, the court granted Ocean Bank's motion for summary judgment as to count one (the UCC count). Additionally, the court dismissed count two (the negligence count). We begin with a review of the exact language of section 670.207(1), Florida Statutes: (1) Subject to subsection (2), if, in a payment order received by the beneficiary's bank, the name, bank account number, or other identification of the beneficiary refers to a nonexistent or unidentifiable person...
...We remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. LEVY, J., concurs. NESBITT, Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would affirm final summary judgment for Ocean Bank. In my view, the trial court's well-reasoned and pragmatic approach to the interpretation of section 670.207, Florida Statutes (1995), was the best solution to the disagreement between these parties....
...Corfan Bank incorrectly listed Silva's account number on the first wire transfer order and, compounding that error, Corfan sent the second wire transfer order with no indication that it was a correction of the first. These errors caused Corfan's loss. More important, the language of section 670.207 does not proscribe the actions taken by Ocean Bank. Section 670.207 precludes acceptance of a wire transfer order only if "the name, account number, or other identification of the beneficiary refers to a nonexistent or unidentifiable person or account." Considering this section in its entirety as statutory construction requires, see Fleischman v....
...William D. Hawkland & Richard Moreno, Uniform Commercial Code Series, § 4A-207:01 (1993)(emphasis added). [5] We note that allowing a negligence claim in this case would "create rights, duties and liabilities inconsistent" with those set forth in section 670.207....
...In a negligence cause of action, Ocean Bank would be entitled to defend on a theory of comparative negligence because Corfan Bank provided the erroneous account number which created the problem at issue and then initiated the second transfer without communicating with Ocean Bank. Section 670.207 does not contemplate such a defense....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26259, 2004 WL 2988555
...1.) Plaintiffs sued BSEC and FLEET for negligence; BSEC and Pusso for fraud; BSEC, FLEET and Pusso for violation of Fl. Stat. §
517.301 (fraudulent transactions); BSEC, FLEET and Pusso for violation of Fl. Stat. §
812.014 (civil theft); Pusso, Scuderi and Capdevielle for conversion; and IBOM for violation of Fla. Stat. §
670.207 (misdescription of beneficiary)....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 18039
...the statute through creative construction. A recent case demonstrates the operation of section
671.103. In Corfan Banco Asuncion Paraguay v. Ocean Bank,
715 So.2d 967, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1407 (Fla. 3d DCA June 10, 1998), the third district held that section
670.207, Florida Statutes (1995), preempts a common law negligence claim relating to a wire transfer of funds between banks. While the wording of section
670.207 can be said to "displace" the common law action, and the official commentary supports such a view, that section does not unequivocally state that it changes the common law....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21697458
...Defendant Pusso opened and maintained an account at petitioner in the name of Boston Investment Holdings. The underlying cases include claims against the defendants for fraud, conspiracy, and civil theft. A single statutory claim is asserted against petitioner for an alleged violation of section 670.207(1), Florida Statutes, relating to the alleged improper acceptance of wire transfer payment orders....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida
...ame attached to the receiving account. Id. ¶ 33. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed the complaint on February 5, 2018, which included one claim for violating the Uniform Commercial Code's ("UCC") wire transfer statute as adopted in Florida Statutes section 670.207, and one claim for negligence....
...And second, it argues that the statute imposes a due diligence requirement on Wells Fargo, which the bank failed to meet. I. The Florida Banking Statutes Florida has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code's ("UCC") relevant banking statutes. This case is governed by section 670.207 of the Florida Statutes. Section 670.207 (which is materially identical to *1230 UCC § 4A-207 ) entitled "Misdescription of beneficiary," provides, in relevant part: (2) If a payment order received by the beneficiary's bank identifies the beneficiary both by name and by an...
...person has rights as beneficiary except the person paid by the beneficiary's bank if that person was entitled to receive payment from the originator of the funds transfer. If no person has rights as beneficiary, acceptance of the order cannot occur. § 670.207(2) (emphasis added)....
...ciding cases *1231 that fall within the statute's ambit. Id. The Florida Legislature adopted all of these principles when it adopted UCC Article 4A almost verbatim. See Fla. Stat. §
670.102 . With respect to the particular provision at issue here ( section
670.207 ), the Florida Legislature has, in great detail, explained the purpose and scope of the protection it affords banks....
...Although the clear trend is for beneficiary's banks to process payment orders by automated means, Section 4A-207 is not limited to cases in which processing is done by automated means. A bank that processes by semi-automated means or even manually may rely on number as stated in Section 4A-207 . Fla Stat. § 670.207, cmt 2....
...It held that the bank was entitled to rely on the receiving account number even when the number and name did not match. "The beneficiary's bank has no duty to determine whether the name and account number specified in the wire transfer relate to the same person." Id. (internal quotations omitted); see also Fla. Stat. § 670.207 cmt....
...action." See Fla. Stat. §
671.201 (27). Here, no individual conducted the transaction; it was automated. And this automation is not only permitted, but encouraged and protected by Article 4A so as to remove the possibility of human error. Fla Stat. §
670.207, cmt 2. Second, even if this due diligence standard applied here, it would not impose on Wells Fargo a duty to determine whether the name and account matched; the statute expressly relieves banks of that duty. See Fla. Stat. §
670.207 cmt....
...be asked of them. Id. (emphasis added). And finally, Plaintiff's proposed due diligence standard would undermine the express purpose of Article 4A by reinserting human review into a process which is intended to be quick and automated. See Fla. Stat. § 670.207 , cmt....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 2086189
...reempts the negligence claim in this case and affirm the dismissal of count two. . . . Id. at 971. The court also noted that "allowing a negligence claim in this case would `create rights, duties and liabilities inconsistent' with those set forth in section 670.207." Id....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12791, 2003 WL 22014728
...hen in conflict with code provisions.” Weiner v. American Petrofina Mktg., Inc.,
482 So.2d 1362, 1364 (Fla.1986). For instance, in Corfan Banco Asuncion Paraguay v. Ocean Bank,
715 So.2d 967 , [sic] (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the third district held that section
670.207, Florida Statutes (1995), preempts a common law negligence claim relating to a wire transfer of funds between banks. While the wording of section
670.207 can be said to “displace” the common law action, and the official commentary supports such a view, that section does not unequivocally state that it changes the common law....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11090
...Defendant Pusso opened and maintained an account at petitioner in the name of Boston Investment Holdings. The underlying cases include claims against the defendants for fraud, conspiracy, and civil theft. A single statutory claim is asserted against petitioner for an alleged violation of section 670.207(1), Florida Statutes, relating to the alleged improper acceptance of wire transfer payment orders....
