673.1101
Identification of person to whom instrument is payable.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
673.1101 Identification of person to whom instrument is payable.—
(1) The person to whom an instrument is initially payable is determined by the intent of the person, whether or not authorized, signing as, or in the name or behalf of, the issuer of the instrument. The instrument is payable to the person intended by the signer even if that person is identified in the instrument by a name or other identification that is not that of the intended person. If more than one person signs in the name or behalf of the issuer of an instrument and all the signers do not intend the same person as payee, the instrument is payable to any person intended by one or more of the signers.
(2) If the signature of the issuer of an instrument is made by automated means, such as a check-writing machine, the payee of the instrument is determined by the intent of the person who supplied the name or identification of the payee, whether or not authorized to do so.
(3) A person to whom an instrument is payable may be identified in any way, including by name, identifying number, office, or account number. For the purpose of determining the holder of an instrument, the following rules apply:
(a) If an instrument is payable to an account and the account is identified only by number, the instrument is payable to the person to whom the account is payable. If an instrument is payable to an account identified by number and by the name of a person, the instrument is payable to the named person, whether or not that person is the owner of the account identified by number.
(b) If an instrument is payable to:
1. A trust, an estate, or a person described as trustee or representative of a trust or estate, the instrument is payable to the trustee, the representative, or a successor of either, whether or not the beneficiary or estate is also named;
2. A person described as agent or similar representative of a named or identified person, the instrument is payable to the represented person, the representative, or a successor of the representative;
3. A fund or organization that is not a legal entity, the instrument is payable to a representative of the members of the fund or organization; or
4. An office or a person described as holding an office, the instrument is payable to the named person, the incumbent of the office, or a successor to the incumbent.
(4) If an instrument is payable to two or more persons alternatively, it is payable to any of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced by any or all of them in possession of the instrument. If an instrument is payable to two or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them. If an instrument payable to two or more persons is ambiguous as to whether it is payable to the persons alternatively, the instrument is payable to the persons alternatively.
History.—s. 2, ch. 92-82.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Hyatt Corp. v. PALM BEACH NAT. BANK
Hyatt Corp. v. PALM BEACH NAT. BANK (2003)
“Turning to our jurisdiction, Florida has adopted the statutory revision to UCC 3-110, with its enactment of Section 673.1101, Florida Statutes (1992).”
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, etc. v. CHRISTOPHER HARRIS a/k/a CHRISTOPHER E. HARRIS (2019)
“Section 673.1101, Florida Statutes (2017), provides that: (3) A person to whom an instrument is payable may be identified in any way, including by name, identifying number, office, or account number.”
Redland Co., Inc. v. Bank of America Corp. (2009)
“…is payable may be identified in any way, including by name, identifying number, office, or account number .... Fla. Stat. § 673.1101”
Verizzo v. The Bank of New York Mellon (2017)
“See §§ 673.1101(1) (identifying the party to whom an instrument is initially payable), .”
Eduardo Gomez v. CVPort Services, LLC (2025)
“Gomez relies on section 673.1101(4), Florida Statutes, claiming that an instrument payable to two parties jointly must be jointly enforced.”
EXPERT INSPECTIONS, LLC v. UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (2022)
“See § 673.1101(4), Fla. Stat (2018) (“If an instrument is payable to two or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them.”
VFS Leasing Co. v. Markel Insurance Company (2022)
“Of particular note is § 673.1101(4), F.S, which includes the same language as § 3-110(d) of the UCC: If an instrument is payable to two or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them.”
Michelle Flaim v. Ryan Flaim (2025)
“Under section 673.1101(4), Florida Statutes (2023): “If an instrument is payable to two or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them.”
Inlanta Mortgage, Inc. v. Kummer (2020)
“See § 673.1101(4), F.S. As such, regardless of how Kummer’s handwritten addition is interpreted, Inlanta still has the right to independently enforce the terms of the note because it is in possession of the instrument.”
ISRA HOMES, INC. v. Appley (2012)
“§ 673.1101(4) (emphasis added). The documents cited in this case reflect that the payees hold their interests “not alternatively.”
Lucas v. Bankatlantic (2006)
“” § 673.1101(1), Florida Statutes (2004). As the issuer of *962 the check before its alteration, the Cohoes City School District intended that School-Link Technologies, and not Lucas, have an interest in the check.”
— 673.1101(1) — 2 cases
Verizzo v. The Bank of New York Mellon (2017)
“See §§ 673.1101(1) (identifying the party to whom an instrument is initially payable), .”
Lucas v. Bankatlantic (2006)
“” § 673.1101(1), Florida Statutes (2004). As the issuer of *962 the check before its alteration, the Cohoes City School District intended that School-Link Technologies, and not Lucas, have an interest in the check.”
— 673.1101(3)(b)(1) — 2 cases
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, etc. v. CHRISTOPHER HARRIS a/k/a CHRISTOPHER E. HARRIS (2019)
“Section 673.1101, Florida Statutes (2017), provides that: (3) A person to whom an instrument is payable may be identified in any way, including by name, identifying number, office, or account number.”
Verizzo v. The Bank of New York Mellon (2017)
“See §§ 673.1101(1) (identifying the party to whom an instrument is initially payable), .”
— 673.1101(4) — 7 cases
Hyatt Corp. v. PALM BEACH NAT. BANK (2003)
“Turning to our jurisdiction, Florida has adopted the statutory revision to UCC 3-110, with its enactment of Section 673.1101, Florida Statutes (1992).”
Eduardo Gomez v. CVPort Services, LLC (2025)
“Gomez relies on section 673.1101(4), Florida Statutes, claiming that an instrument payable to two parties jointly must be jointly enforced.”
EXPERT INSPECTIONS, LLC v. UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (2022)
“See § 673.1101(4), Fla. Stat (2018) (“If an instrument is payable to two or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them.”
VFS Leasing Co. v. Markel Insurance Company (2022)
“Of particular note is § 673.1101(4), F.S, which includes the same language as § 3-110(d) of the UCC: If an instrument is payable to two or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them.”
Michelle Flaim v. Ryan Flaim (2025)
“Under section 673.1101(4), Florida Statutes (2023): “If an instrument is payable to two or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them.”
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.