670.207
Misdescription of beneficiary.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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 record 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; s. 26, ch. 2025-92.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Corfan Banco v. Ocean Bank
Corfan Banco v. Ocean Bank (1998)
“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.”
Warter v. Boston Securities, S.A. (2004)
“014 (civil theft); Pusso, Scuderi and Capdevielle for conversion; and IBOM for violation of Fla. Stat. § 670.207 (misdescription of beneficiary).”
Peter E. Shapiro, P.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2018)
“Fla Stat. § 670.207, cmt 2. (emphasis added).”
Burtman v. TECHNICAL CHEMICALS AND PROD. (1999)
“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.”
Impact Computers & Electronics, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. (2003)
“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.”
AmSouth Bank v. Tice (2005)
“In Corfan Banco, the Florida District Court of Appeals held that § 670.207, Fla. Stat. Ann. (West 2004), displaced a common-law negligence claim arising out of a wire transfer of funds between banks.”
International Bank of Miami, N.A. v. Shinitzky (2003)
“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.”
Peter E. Shapiro, P.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (2019)
“That said, Shapiro’s actions in this regard do not play into our analysis in this case because the official comments to Fla. Stat. § 670.207 indicate that “Article 4A makes irrelevant the issue of whether [the originator of a funds transfer] was or was not negligent in issuing…”
Martin v. Florida Power and Light Co. (2005)
“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. For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the trial court's final summary judgment.”
Powis Parker, Inc. v. Truist Bank (2024)
“Fla. Stat. § 670.207 (2)(a)–(b). The general UCC definitions provide that “[a] person ‘knows’ or has ‘knowledge’ of a fact when the person has actual knowledge of it.”
Powis Parker, Inc. v. Truist Bank (2023)
“Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges two counts: Violation of Fla. Stat. § 670.207 (Count I) and Breach of Contract (Count II).”
INTERNATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, NA v. Shinitzky (2003)
“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.”
— 670.207(1) — 3 cases
Corfan Banco v. Ocean Bank (1998)
“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.”
International Bank of Miami, N.A. v. Shinitzky (2003)
“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.”
INTERNATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, NA v. Shinitzky (2003)
“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.”
— 670.207(2) — 2 cases
Peter E. Shapiro, P.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2018)
“Fla Stat. § 670.207, cmt 2. (emphasis added).”
Powis Parker, Inc. v. Truist Bank (2024)
“Fla. Stat. § 670.207 (2)(a)–(b). The general UCC definitions provide that “[a] person ‘knows’ or has ‘knowledge’ of a fact when the person has actual knowledge of it.”
— 670.207(2)(a) — 1 case
Powis Parker, Inc. v. Truist Bank (2023)
“Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges two counts: Violation of Fla. Stat. § 670.207 (Count I) and Breach of Contract (Count II).”
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.