Florida Statute 673.3081 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Chapter 673
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 673.3081

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.

F.S. 673.3081 on Google Scholar

F.S. 673.3081 on CourtListener

Amendments to 673.3081

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 673.3081

Total Results: 22

Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. v. Talcott

830 So. 2d 160, 48 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 800

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 9, 2002 | Docket: 1516853

Cited 9 times | Published

status by a preponderance of the evidence. See § 673.3081(2), Fla. Stat. (2001); Seinfeld v. Commercial

PennyMac Corp. v. Frost

214 So. 3d 686, 92 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 169, 2017 WL 1013192, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3441

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 2017 | Docket: 60264214

Cited 3 times | Published

generally “presumed to be authentic and authorized.” § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). However, the issue of

Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC

258 So. 3d 516

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 10, 2018 | Docket: 64696944

Cited 2 times | Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co

Madura v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, LP

593 F. App'x 834

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 10, 2014 | Docket: 65959097

Cited 2 times | Published

specifically denied in the pleadings.” Fla. Stat. § 673.3081(1). If the validity of a signature is denied

Evelyn Martinez v. Selene Finance LP

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2024 | Docket: 68050128

Published

LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2022); Bennett v. Deutsche Bank

EMAD SELIM v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 2023 | Docket: 65346517

Published

GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); Barsan v. Trinity Fin

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc. v. REGIS BONTOUX

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2022 | Docket: 63162672

Published

3d 320, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) holds that section 673.3081(1), Florida Statutes, “instructs that once

AZRAN MIAMI 2 LLC v. US BANK TRUST, N.A., etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 2022 | Docket: 62628755

Published

opinion which reads in full: Affirmed. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2016); Bennett v. Deutsche

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, ETC. v. FLEMING HARRIS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 2020 | Docket: 17436372

Published

indorsement is presumed to be authentic and authorized. § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). “When indorsed in

AMY B. SCHWARTZ and JAY F. SCHWARTZ v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., etc.

267 So. 3d 414

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 2019 | Docket: 14618632

Published

to enforce the note. The appellee relied on section 673.3081, Florida Statutes (2012), to establish its

PMT NPL Financing v. Centurion Systems

257 So. 3d 516

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 20, 2018 | Docket: 7784429

Published

unless specifically denied in the pleadings.” Id. § 673.3081(1). The Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”) Comment

Rey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

244 So. 3d 409

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 2018 | Docket: 64679361

Published

validity of signatures on allonge, based on section 673.3081(1), Florida Statutes, in absence of any evidence

Rey v. U.S. Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 2018 | Docket: 6773025

Published

validity of signatures on allonge, based on section 673.3081(1), Florida Statutes, in absence of any evidence

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOC., ETC. v. JAMES HESS a/k/a JAMES H. HESS

228 So. 3d 143, 2017 WL 4679601

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2017 | Docket: 6171812

Published

“contrary” evidence exists in this case. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“In an action with respect

Polonsky v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

207 So. 3d 362, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17698

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2016 | Docket: 4546362

Published

signatures on the note and mortgage. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2009) (providing that “[i]n an

Sanabria v. Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC

197 So. 3d 94, 90 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 57, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10878, 2016 WL 3767181

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2016 | Docket: 4111224

Published

produce pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 673.3081 (2011), assuming, without conceding

Carlos M. Rivera and Yanira J. Pena Santiago v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Incorporated as Nominee for FDIC as Receiver for Amtrust Bank, Shaughnessy Village Homeowners Association, Inc., and Olympia Master Association, Inc.

189 So. 3d 323, 2016 WL 1579076, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5999

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 2016 | Docket: 3055582

Published

indorsements on the Note ... pursuant to Florida Statute 673.3081.” 3. The Non-Jury Trial

Mario A. Rodriguez and Lendy Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a America's Servicing Company

178 So. 3d 62, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15239, 2015 WL 5948169

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2015 | Docket: 2919777

Published

note by virtue of signatures on. the note. 'Section 673.3081(2), Florida Statutes (2010), provides (2)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rutledge

148 So. 3d 533, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15862, 2014 WL 5072721

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 10, 2014 | Docket: 1441422

Published

that Mary Dias’s signature is authentic under section 673.3081, Florida Statutes (2013). In Rutledge’s motion

Bennett v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

124 So. 3d 320, 2013 WL 5538764, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15910

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 9, 2013 | Docket: 60235449

Published

foreclosure relying on the statutory presumption in section 673.3081(1), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides:

Hobley v. Metz

630 So. 2d 625, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3, 1994 WL 1269

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 1994 | Docket: 64745846

Published

recoupment described in § 673.3051(1). . Section 673.3081(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), provides

Hobley v. Metz

630 So. 2d 625, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3, 1994 WL 1269

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 1994 | Docket: 64745846

Published

recoupment described in § 673.3051(1). . Section 673.3081(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), provides