Florida Statute 670.207 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Chapter 670
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: FUNDS TRANSFERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 670.207

670.207 Misdescription of beneficiary.—

(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 or account, no person has rights as a beneficiary of the order and acceptance of the order cannot occur.

(2) If a payment order received by the beneficiary’s bank identifies the beneficiary both by name and by an identifying or bank account number and the name and number identify different persons, the following rules apply:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), if the beneficiary’s bank does not know that the name and number refer to different persons, it may rely on the number as the proper identification of the beneficiary of the order. The beneficiary’s bank need not determine whether the name and number refer to the same person.

(b) If the beneficiary’s bank pays the person identified by name or knows that the name and number identify different persons, no 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.

(3) If a payment order described in subsection (2) is accepted, the originator’s payment order described the beneficiary inconsistently by name and number, and the beneficiary’s bank pays the person identified by number as permitted by paragraph (2)(a), the following rules apply:

(a) If the originator is a bank, the originator is obliged to pay its order.

(b) If the originator is not a bank and proves that the person identified by number was not entitled to receive payment from the originator, the originator is not obliged to pay its order unless the originator’s bank proves that the originator, before acceptance of the originator’s order, had notice that payment of a payment order issued by the originator might be made by the beneficiary’s bank on the basis of an identifying or bank account number even if it identifies a person different from the named beneficiary. Proof of notice may be made by any admissible evidence. The originator’s bank satisfies the burden of proof if it proves that the originator, before the payment order was accepted, signed a writing stating the information to which the notice relates.

(4) In a case governed by paragraph (2)(a), if the beneficiary’s bank rightfully pays the person identified by number and that person was not entitled to receive payment from the originator, the amount paid may be recovered from that person to the extent allowed by the law governing mistake and restitution as follows:

(a) If the originator is obliged to pay its payment order as stated in subsection (3), the originator has the right to recover.

(b) If the originator is not a bank and is not obliged to pay its payment order, the originator’s bank has the right to recover.

History.—s. 1, ch. 91-70.

F.S. 670.207 on Google Scholar

F.S. 670.207 on Casetext

Amendments to 670.207

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 670.207

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 670.207.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 670.207

Total Results: 6

Martin v. Florida Power and Light Co.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2005-08-31T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 909 So. 2d 555

Snippet: inconsistent' with those set forth in section 670.207." Id. For the reasons set forth above, we

Impact Computers & Electronics, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2003-08-27T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 852 So. 2d 946, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12791, 2003 WL 22014728

Snippet: DCA 1998), the third district held that section 670.207, Florida Statutes (1995), preempts a common law…funds between banks. While the wording of section 670.207 can be said to “displace” the common law action

INTERNATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, NA v. Shinitzky

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2003-07-23T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 849 So. 2d 1188

Snippet: petitioner for an alleged violation of section 670.207(1), Florida Statutes, relating to the alleged improper

International Bank of Miami, N.A. v. Shinitzky

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2003-07-23T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 849 So. 2d 1188, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11090

Snippet: petitioner for an alleged violation of section 670.207(1), Florida Statutes, relating to the alleged improper

Burtman v. TECHNICAL CHEMICALS AND PROD.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1999-01-19T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 724 So. 2d 672

Snippet: 10, 1998), the third district held that section 670.207, Florida Statutes (1995), preempts a common law…funds between banks. While the wording of section 670.207 can be said to "displace" the common

Corfan Banco v. Ocean Bank

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1998-06-10T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 715 So. 2d 967

Snippet: language of section 670.207 does not proscribe the actions taken by Ocean Bank. Section 670.207 precludes acceptance…proceeded on two claims, one based on the section 670.207, Florida Statutes (1995), which codifies as Florida…found that Ocean Bank had not contravened section 670.207 by crediting the erroneous March 22nd wire transfer…with a review of the exact language of section 670.207(1), Florida Statutes: (1) Subject to subsection…pragmatic approach to the interpretation of section 670.207, Florida Statutes (1995), was the best solution