Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 673.3051 (2025)

Defenses and claims in recoupment.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

673.3051 Defenses and claims in recoupment.—

(1) Except as stated in subsection (2), the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to:

(a) A defense of the obligor based on:

1. Infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract;

2. Duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor;

3. Fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms; or

4. Discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings;

(b) A defense of the obligor stated in another section of this chapter or a defense of the obligor that would be available if the person entitled to enforce the instrument were enforcing a right to payment under a simple contract; and

(c) A claim in recoupment of the obligor against the original payee of the instrument if the claim arose from the transaction that gave rise to the instrument; but the claim of the obligor may be asserted against a transferee of the instrument only to reduce the amount owing on the instrument at the time the action is brought.

(2) The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in paragraph (1)(a), but is not subject to defenses of the obligor stated in paragraph (1)(b) or claims in recoupment stated in paragraph (1)(c) against a person other than the holder.

(3) Except as stated in subsection (4), in an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument (s. 673.3061) of another person, but the other person’s claim to the instrument may be asserted by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.

(4) In an action to enforce the obligation of an accommodation party to pay an instrument, the accommodation party may assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument any defense or claim in recoupment under subsection (1) that the accommodated party could assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument, except the defenses of discharge in insolvency proceedings, infancy, and lack of legal capacity.

History.—s. 2, ch. 92-82.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: In re Elowitz, 550 B.R. 603 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Elowitz, 550 B.R. 603 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2016). · cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 673.3051 (2): see also, Davis v.”

Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. v. Talcott, 830 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “§ 673.3051(1) & (2), Fla. Stat. (2001). Because Talcott was fraudulently induced to issue the checks, this case turns on Any Kind's entitlement to holder in due course status.”

Citibank, N.A. v. Dalessio, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (M.D. Fla. 2010). “3061; and (6) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in *1367 recoupment described in section 673.3051(1). Fla. Stat. § 673.3021 (1).”

HSBC Bank USA v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “” § 673.3051(3). Even then, ownership is not relevant to standing so much as the question of who is the ultimate beneficial owner of the proceeds of the foreclosure, an issue not normally or necessarily part of a foreclosure case.”

Am. First Fed., Inc. v. Lake Forest Park, Inc., 198 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 1999). “. " Fla. Stat. Ann. § 201.17 (2) (West 1999).”

Heritage Real Est. & Dev. Co. v. Gaich, 620 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). · cites it 2× “In Atrio, the Third District held that there was no error in the entry of a final summary judgment on a note and mortgage where a counterclaim was pending, since the trial court stayed judgment pending determination of the counterclaim. Accordingly, we affirm the final summary…”

Gregory Mirmelli v. Harvey Silverman, Etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). · cites it 2× “”); § 673.3051(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument .”

Cabrillo Dev., LLC v. Bayview Loan Servs., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). · cites it 2× “We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure, concluding that there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determinations that Bayview had standing, and that Bayview was a holder in due course as provided in section 673.”

Carrillo Dev., LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 193 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). · cites it 2× “We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure, concluding that there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determinations that Bayview had standing, and that Bayview was a holder in due course as provided in section 673.”

Broide v. Alvarez, 90 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). · cites it 2× “”); § 673.3051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“[T]he right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to .”

Aquasol Condo Assoc. v. HSBC Bank USA (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “” § 673.3051(3). Even then, ownership is not relevant to standing so much as the question of who is the ultimate beneficial owner of the proceeds of the foreclosure, an issue not normally or necessarily part of a foreclosure case.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— 673.3051(1) — 3 cases

Hobley v. Metz, 630 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

— 673.3051(1)(c) — 1 case

Heritage Real Est. & Dev. Co. v. Gaich, 620 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). “In Atrio, the Third District held that there was no error in the entry of a final summary judgment on a note and mortgage where a counterclaim was pending, since the trial court stayed judgment pending determination of the counterclaim. Accordingly, we affirm the final summary…”

— 673.3051(2) — 1 case

Gregory Mirmelli v. Harvey Silverman, Etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). “”); § 673.3051(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument .”

— 673.3051(3) — 3 cases

— 673.3051(l)(b) — 1 case

Broide v. Alvarez, 90 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “”); § 673.3051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“[T]he right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to .”

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.