Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 673.3091 (2025)
Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.
✓ 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
673.3091 Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.—
(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:
(a) The person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;
(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and
(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s. 673.3081 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 103
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Brian & Cynthia Poag v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 198 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
Brian & Cynthia Poag v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 198 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “The Poags argue that Nationstar failed to prove reestablishment of the lost note under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2014).”
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “" § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 673.”
Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). “Entitlement to Sue on a Lost Note We first address the trial court's ruling that "the plaintiff could not demonstrate his entitlement to enforce a lost note under Florida Statute § 673.3091 because Plaintiff is unable to show (i) he was in possession of the alleged instrument…”
Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Badra, 991 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “§ 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, it is MERS' burden to prove State Street's possession.”
Figueroa v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 180 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “into evidence; was dated seven months after the complaint was filed and .”
Beaumont v. Bank of New York Mellon, 81 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). “See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2010). This required Mellon to show it was entitled to enforce the note when it lost the instrument, or that it directly or indirectly acquired ownership from a person who was *555 entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.”
Boumarate v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 172 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat.; see also Deakter v.”
Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “For the requirements to reestablish a lost note we look to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2007).”
Houk v. PennyMac Corp., 210 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). “is entitled to enforce the instrument, but has lost'the Mortgage Note pursuant to Florida Statutes § 673.3091. In paragraph 25 of Count II, PennyMac alleged, in pertinent part: “Plaintiff was in possession of the Note and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred…”
Seidler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 179 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). “A finding that a lost note is reestablished, under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, is reversible upon the appellate court’s deter-, mination of a failure of proof.”
Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “In Correa , the bank failed to present evidence of the terms of a lost note under section 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes (2007), or its right to enforce the lost note under section 673.”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. McFadyen, 194 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “The motion was granted with-the trial court finding that Fannie Mae “did not satisfy the requirements of Fla. Stat. 673.3091 to enforce-the lost, destroyed or stolen Note.”
— 673.3091(1) — 21 cases
Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). “Entitlement to Sue on a Lost Note We first address the trial court's ruling that "the plaintiff could not demonstrate his entitlement to enforce a lost note under Florida Statute § 673.3091 because Plaintiff is unable to show (i) he was in possession of the alleged instrument…”
Beaumont v. Bank of New York Mellon, 81 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). “See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2010). This required Mellon to show it was entitled to enforce the note when it lost the instrument, or that it directly or indirectly acquired ownership from a person who was *555 entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.”
Figueroa v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 180 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “into evidence; was dated seven months after the complaint was filed and .”
Brian & Cynthia Poag v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 198 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “The Poags argue that Nationstar failed to prove reestablishment of the lost note under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2014).”
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. U.N. Kee Wing, 210 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
— 673.3091(1)(a) — 13 cases
Frederick Sabido & Jonelle Sabido v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Etc., 241 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Badra, 991 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “§ 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, it is MERS' burden to prove State Street's possession.”
DiGiovanni v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 226 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
Seidler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 179 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). “A finding that a lost note is reestablished, under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, is reversible upon the appellate court’s deter-, mination of a failure of proof.”
Roberto Vieira & Shawn D. Vieira v. Pennymac Corp., 241 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
— 673.3091(1)(b) — 5 cases
Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). “Entitlement to Sue on a Lost Note We first address the trial court's ruling that "the plaintiff could not demonstrate his entitlement to enforce a lost note under Florida Statute § 673.3091 because Plaintiff is unable to show (i) he was in possession of the alleged instrument…”
Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “For the requirements to reestablish a lost note we look to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2007).”
Florida Holding 4800 LLC v. Lauderhill Lending, LLC, 275 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
MBC Gospel Network, LLC, Willie Gary, Lorenzo Williams v. Florida's News Channel, LC, Evander Holyfield, Cecil Fielder, & Rick Newberger (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Dukes (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).
— 673.3091(1)(c) — 4 cases
Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). “Entitlement to Sue on a Lost Note We first address the trial court's ruling that "the plaintiff could not demonstrate his entitlement to enforce a lost note under Florida Statute § 673.3091 because Plaintiff is unable to show (i) he was in possession of the alleged instrument…”
Connelly v. Matthews, 899 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Margareth F Bricourt (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
MBC Gospel Network, LLC, Willie Gary, Lorenzo Williams v. Florida's News Channel, LC, Evander Holyfield, Cecil Fielder, & Rick Newberger (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
— 673.3091(2) — 19 cases
Figueroa v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 180 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “into evidence; was dated seven months after the complaint was filed and .”
Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “In Correa , the bank failed to present evidence of the terms of a lost note under section 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes (2007), or its right to enforce the lost note under section 673.”
Beaumont v. Bank of New York Mellon, 81 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). “See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2010). This required Mellon to show it was entitled to enforce the note when it lost the instrument, or that it directly or indirectly acquired ownership from a person who was *555 entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.”
Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “For the requirements to reestablish a lost note we look to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2007).”
Guerrero v. Chase Home Fin., LLC., 83 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
— 673.3091(a) — 2 cases
Feltus v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 80 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
Feltus v. Us Bank Nat. Ass'n, 80 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
— 673.3091(l)(a) — 5 cases
Boumarate v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 172 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat.; see also Deakter v.”
Figueroa v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 180 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “into evidence; was dated seven months after the complaint was filed and .”
Peters v. The Bank of New York Mellon, 227 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Angeloni, 199 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “For the requirements to reestablish a lost note we look to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2007).”
— 673.3091(l)(b) — 2 cases
Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 153 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “In Correa , the bank failed to present evidence of the terms of a lost note under section 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes (2007), or its right to enforce the lost note under section 673.”
Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “For the requirements to reestablish a lost note we look to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2007).”
— 673.3091(l)(c) — 2 cases
Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “For the requirements to reestablish a lost note we look to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2007).”
Connelly v. Matthews, 899 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
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.