673.3011
Person entitled to enforce instrument.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
673.3011 Person entitled to enforce instrument.—The term “person entitled to enforce” an instrument means:
(1) The holder of the instrument;
(2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or
(3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 or s. 673.4181(4).
A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.
History.—s. 2, ch. 92-82.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 123
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Gafoor Jaffer and Nina Jaffer v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
Gafoor Jaffer and Nina Jaffer v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (2015)
“3011, Florida Statutes (2013), defines who may enforce a negotiable instrument and enforce payment of the debt: The term “person entitled to enforce” an instrument means: (1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a…”
Federal National Mortgage Association v. McFadyen (2016)
“§ 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2015). Fannie Mae’s claim below was' that it was entitled to enforce the Probert promissory note although not in possession of it.”
Mario A. Rodriguez and Lendy Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a America's Servicing Company (2015)
“§ 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2010). As can be seen from the statutory requirements, the person or entity entitled to enforce the note must have the rights of a holder.”
Donna Murray and Marc Murray v. HSBC Bank USA (2015)
“” § 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2013). A “holder” is defined as “[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.”
Brindise v. U.S. Bank National Association (2016)
“Bank alleged and proved that it held the note at the time it filed suit. On appeal, the Brindises do not challenge U.”
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hagstrom (2016)
“§ 673.3011 (identifying the three categories of persons entitled to enforce a note); Rodriguez, 178 So.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Morcom (2013)
“§ 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2010). We have previously held that “[t]he party that holds the note and mortgage in question has standing to bring and maintain a foreclosure action.”
Harvey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011)
“" § 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2009). A "holder" is "[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.”
Houk v. PennyMac Corp. (2017)
“Section 673.3011, Florida Statutes (2012), addresses the question of how one may qualify as a person entitled to enforce an instrument: The term “person entitled to enforce” an instrument means: (1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument…”
Phan v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2016)
“See § 673.3011(1), Fla. Stat.' (2008) (“The term ‘person entitled to enforce’ an instrument means: the holder of the instrument^]”).”
Thomas Caraccia v. U.S. Bank, National Association (2016)
“§ 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2013). A holder is “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument ‘that is payablé either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.”
Taylor v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2010)
“We begin our consideration of this case with section 673.3011, Florida Statutes (2009).”
— 673.3011(1) — 31 cases
Phan v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2016)
“See § 673.3011(1), Fla. Stat.' (2008) (“The term ‘person entitled to enforce’ an instrument means: the holder of the instrument^]”).”
Federal National Mortgage Association v. McFadyen (2016)
“§ 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2015). Fannie Mae’s claim below was' that it was entitled to enforce the Probert promissory note although not in possession of it.”
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hagstrom (2016)
“§ 673.3011 (identifying the three categories of persons entitled to enforce a note); Rodriguez, 178 So.”
— 673.3011(2) — 11 cases
Brindise v. U.S. Bank National Association (2016)
“Bank alleged and proved that it held the note at the time it filed suit. On appeal, the Brindises do not challenge U.”
Donna Murray and Marc Murray v. HSBC Bank USA (2015)
“” § 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2013). A “holder” is defined as “[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.”
Federal National Mortgage Association v. McFadyen (2016)
“§ 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2015). Fannie Mae’s claim below was' that it was entitled to enforce the Probert promissory note although not in possession of it.”
— 673.3011(3) — 8 cases
Gafoor Jaffer and Nina Jaffer v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (2015)
“3011, Florida Statutes (2013), defines who may enforce a negotiable instrument and enforce payment of the debt: The term “person entitled to enforce” an instrument means: (1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a…”
Houk v. PennyMac Corp. (2017)
“Section 673.3011, Florida Statutes (2012), addresses the question of how one may qualify as a person entitled to enforce an instrument: The term “person entitled to enforce” an instrument means: (1) The holder of the instrument; (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument…”
Federal National Mortgage Association v. McFadyen (2016)
“§ 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2015). Fannie Mae’s claim below was' that it was entitled to enforce the Probert promissory note although not in possession of it.”
— 673.3011(l) — 1 case
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.