Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 673.3081 (2025)

Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course.

✓ 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

673.3081 Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course.—

(1) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature. If an action to enforce the instrument is brought against a person as the undisclosed principal of a person who signed the instrument as a party to the instrument, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant is liable on the instrument as a represented person under s. 673.4021(1).

(2) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection (1), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under s. 673.3011, unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, the right to payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the defense or claim.

History.—s. 2, ch. 92-82.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Mario A. Rodriguez & Lendy Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Am.'s Servicing Co., 178 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mario A. Rodriguez & Lendy Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Am.'s Servicing Co., 178 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). · cites it 8× “§ 673.3081(2), Fla. Stat. (2010) (emphasis added).”

Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). · cites it 2× “902(8), Florida Statutes (2008), provides that “[cjommercial papers and signatures thereon and documents relating to them [are self authenticating], to the extent provided in the Uniform Commercial Code.”

Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). · cites it 4× “3081(1) means that until some evidence is introduced which would support a finding that the signature is forged or unauthorized, the plaintiff was not required to prove that it is valid (citing UCC comment 1 to section 673.3081), and because defendants failed to make any…”

Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 124 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). · cites it 7× “Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1 to section 673.3081 explains the operation of this presumption as follows: “Burden of establishing” is defined in Section 1-201.”

PMT NPL Fin. v. Centurion Sys., 257 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). · cites it 3× “Comment in interpreting section 673.3081). 6 forged or unauthorized); Bennett v.”

PennyMac Corp. v. Frost, 214 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). · cites it 2× “” § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). However, the issue of whether a signature on an indorsement is “authentic and authorized” is a separate question from the legal effect of the indorsement.”

Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. v. Talcott, 830 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). · cites it 2× “See § 673.3081(2), Fla. Stat. (2001); Seinfeld v.”

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rutledge, 148 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). · cites it 2× “There is a presumption that Mary Dias’s signature is authentic under section 673.3081, Florida Statutes (2013).”

Sanabria v. Pennymac Mortg. Inv. Trust Holdings I, LLC, 197 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). · cites it 14× “second amended complaint, the homeowners alleged, as their ninth affirmative defense, the following: With regard to all counts of the Complaint, the Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because the Defendants affirmatively question the veracity and authenticity of…”

Madura v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, LP, 593 F. App'x 834 (11th Cir. 2014). “” Fla. Stat. § 673.3081 (1). If the validity of a signature is denied, the burden of establishing the validity generally “is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized.”

Carlos M. Rivera & Yanira J. Pena Santiago v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys. Inc. as Nominee for FDIC as Receiver for Amtrust Bank, Shaughnessy Vill. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., & Olympia Master Ass'n, Inc., 189 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). · cites it 2× “3081(1), Florida Statutes (2010), Uniform Commercial Code Comment, provides: “[U]ntil some evidence is introduced which would support a finding that the signature is forged or unauthorized, the plaintiff is not required to prove that it is valid.”

Amy B. Schwartz & Jay F. Schwartz v. Bank of Am., N.a., Etc., 267 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). · cites it 2× “The appellee relied on section 673.3081, Florida Statutes (2012), to establish its standing, which provides for presumption of authenticity and authority of signatures on secured instruments, shifting to the party opposing the validity of the note the burden to offer some…”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— 673.3081(1) — 18 cases

Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “902(8), Florida Statutes (2008), provides that “[cjommercial papers and signatures thereon and documents relating to them [are self authenticating], to the extent provided in the Uniform Commercial Code.”

Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “3081(1) means that until some evidence is introduced which would support a finding that the signature is forged or unauthorized, the plaintiff was not required to prove that it is valid (citing UCC comment 1 to section 673.3081), and because defendants failed to make any…”

Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 124 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). “Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1 to section 673.3081 explains the operation of this presumption as follows: “Burden of establishing” is defined in Section 1-201.”

PennyMac Corp. v. Frost, 214 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “” § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). However, the issue of whether a signature on an indorsement is “authentic and authorized” is a separate question from the legal effect of the indorsement.”

PMT NPL Fin. v. Centurion Sys., 257 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). “Comment in interpreting section 673.3081). 6 forged or unauthorized); Bennett v.”

— 673.3081(2) — 3 cases

Mario A. Rodriguez & Lendy Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Am.'s Servicing Co., 178 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “§ 673.3081(2), Fla. Stat. (2010) (emphasis added).”

Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. v. Talcott, 830 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “See § 673.3081(2), Fla. Stat. (2001); Seinfeld v.”

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

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.