The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
|
||||||
|
The court's records show the note was not cancelled as a result of the 2012 proceedings, as reflected in the final judgment. The clerk mailed the note to Choice Legal, but it was lost in transit. Therefore, Fannie Mae proved it "had possession of the note with a blank indorsement prior to suit being filed, but lost possession of the note under circumstances that would not negate its right to enforce." See Luiz v. Lynx Asset Servs., LLC, 198 So.3d 1102, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Fannie Mae also provided testimony that it would indemnify the appellees for any loss that may occur should any other person attempt to enforce the note. See § 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2017).The crux of the dispute is whether Trustee proved that it had standing when it first filed its foreclosure complaint. See Schmidt v. Deutsche Bank, 170 So.3d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("[T]he burden is on the party seeking foreclosure to prove by substantial competent evidence that it has standing." (citing Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So.3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014))). To prove standing, a party must show that it is "(1) [t]he 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)." See § 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2008); Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Marciano, 190 So.3d 166, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).To correctly adjudicate the issue presented here, it is necessary to carefully analyze a variety of somewhat technical UCC Article III concepts, including the meaning of “acceptance” (§ 673.4091, F.S. ), “dishonor” (§ 673.5021 F.S. ), “presentment” (§ 673.5011, F.S. ), and “payment or acceptance by mistake” (§ 673.4181 F.S. ), as well as provisions governing the “effect of instrument on obligation for which taken” (§673.3101, F.S.) and “enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument” (§ 673.3091, F.S. ), among others. Of particular note is § 673.1101(4), F.S , which includes the same language as § 3-110(d) of the UCC:BONYM initiated this litigation “to foreclose a mortgage on real property in Hillsborough County, Florida” Defendants defaulted on “and to re-establish a lost promissory note” executed by Mr. Pedersen. (Doc. 47, pp. 1-2). An October 27, 2016 order on BONYM's motion for summary judgment of foreclosure concluded “[t]he record is undisputed that [BONYM] is the holder of the Mortgage and Note with standing to foreclose the same . . . [and BONYM] is entitled to judgment on its claim to re-establish the Note . . . pursuant to [§ 673.3091, FLA. STAT., (2016)].” (Id. at 2-3). The October 27, 2016 order rejected Defendants' assertions that BONYM lacked standing to raise their claims and BONYM's claims were barred under the relevant statute of limitations. (Id. at 4-5). The October 27, 2016 order granted BONYM's motion for summary judgment of foreclosure, as well as BONYM's request for reasonable attorneys' fees. (Id. at 6).Second, Plaintiff does not allege facts to show that an injury is traceable to either Defendant's conduct-which would be impossible anyway because Plaintiff does not show an injury in fact. In re Benkovitch, No. 16-1143-BKC, 2017 WL 543177, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Bankr. Feb. 6, 2017) (“The Court is persuaded . . . that because [Plaintiff] suffered no injury in fact, he cannot demonstrate any causation related to any of the Defendants' alleged conduct or injury redressable by a court.”). In fact, the State of Florida was not even a party to the state foreclosure action. With respect to BANA, Plaintiff alleges no facts to show that there was any failure to conform with the provisions of Chapter 702 or section 673.3091 of the Florida Statutes relating to foreclosures and enforcement of lost or destroyed instruments. Plaintiff simply fails to allege sufficient facts to trace any wrongdoing to Defendants.Deutsche argues that its witness testified that the business records reflected that Bank of America followed its normal procedures relating to a lost note and that because the witness demonstrated his familiarity with Bank of America's procedures, such testimony was sufficient to meet the requirements of section 673.3091. However, while that testimony established the witness's qualifications to testify about Bank of America's business records generally, it did not suffice to meet the requirements of section 673.3091(1)(b). Consequently, the trial court erred by admitting Deutsche's witness's testimony on the issue of whether the note had been seized, transferred, or sold and then relying on it to deny DiGiovanni's motion for involuntary dismissal. Deutsche failed to prove that the note had not been seized, transferred, or sold, thereby failing to prove its entitlement to enforce it pursuant to section 673.3091(1)(b). Therefore, we must reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand for involuntary dismissal. See Correa v. U.S. Bank N.A., 118 So. 3d 952, 955-57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).In reviewing this statutory language, the First District recently concluded that the statute "do[es] not create an independent cause of action." Mielke v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 264 So. 3d 249, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Rather, the statute "recognizes that an entity not possessing an instrument is still entitled to enforce it if the entity meets certain conditions. The cause of action is the enforcement itself; section 673.3091 only sets forth special requirements if the plaintiff does not possess the instrument." Id. at 253. Therefore, the First District concluded that "the right to enforce a lost note, in the foreclosure context, travels with the breach that triggers the need to seek enforcement-default by a mortgagor. ... [S]ection 673.3091 does not create a standalone cause of action apart from a breach." Id.St. Catherine's amended complaint stated claims for recovery under the note and made no mention of the fact that it was not in possession of the original instrument or that it intended to seek reestablishment of that instrument under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes. St. Catherine proceeded at trial under a theory that it was never in possession of the original note and that American Residential had it, which American Residential denied.The borrowers argue the bank did not have standing to foreclose the mortgage because it did not reestablish the lost note, pursuant to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes ; and it cannot rely on its corrective assignment of mortgage to establish standing. The bank responds it reestablished the lost note and its corrective mortgage assignment established standing.Affirmed. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Delgado, 166 So. 3d 857, 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (noting: "Generally, appellate courts review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.") See also § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2019) ; Almendral v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 276 So. 3d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Kee Wing, 210 So. 3d 216, 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), for the proposition that "[a] party seeking to reestablish a lost note may meet [the requirements of section 673.3091(1), Florida Statutes ] either through a lost note affidavit or by testimony from a person with knowledge.") (internal citations omitted).. . . The requirements to enforce a lost note are set forth in Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2017), which . . . See § 673.3091(1)(a). . . . See § 673.3091(1)(b) & (c). . . .
. . . the plaintiff to prove it was entitled to enforce the instrument; i.e., had/has standing); see also § 673.3091 . . .
. . . ." § 673.3091(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017). . . . The bank failed to satisfy the requirements of section 673.3091(1)(a). . . .
. . . Because we find that the requirements for enforcing a lost note pursuant to section 673.3091, Florida . . . Accordingly, the trial court held that an "action under section 673.3091 is connected to an action for . . . Section 673.3091 provides as follows: (1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to . . . The language of section 673.3091 demonstrates that it is not intended to create a cause of action to . . . As a result, section 673.3091 does not create a standalone cause of action apart from a breach. . . .
. . . remaining issue, i.e. that there was insufficient evidence to support the indemnity required under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the note who is entitled to enforce under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . asserted that although the note was lost, it was entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section 673.3091 . . . Thus, PennyMac had to prove standing and the right to enforce the note, using section 673.3091, Fla. . . . Section 673.3091(1)(a), requires in part that "[t]he person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled . . .
. . . Corp. , 185 So.3d 645, 646-47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ; § 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). . . .
. . . however, is that Wells Fargo was required to prove its entitlement to enforce the note under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . and (2) there was insufficient evidence to reestablish the lost note under Florida Statutes section 673.3091 . . . (quoting § 673.3091, Fla. Stat.). Here, the unbroken chain of assignments and Mr. . . . substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings that the lost note requirements of section 673.3091 . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . .
. . . the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the lost note under section 673.3091 . . . Section 673.3091(1), Florida Statutes (2016) provides: (1) A person not in possession of an instrument . . . Thus, subsection 673.3091(1)(a) required that the Bank prove one of two things, that it either 1. . . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . . The Bank was then required to comply with the second option in section 673.3091(1)(a) set forth above-the . . .
. . . a person not in possession who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Florida Statute § 673.3091 . . . That this was a "boilerplate" defense is disclosed by the fact that section 673.3091, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . as "an entity not in possession of the Note which is entitled to enforce the Note pursuant to F.S. 673.3091 . . . a mortgage includes a person not in possession of the note who is entitled to enforce under section 673.3091 . . . loss was not the result of a transfer or seizure, and the instrument cannot reasonably be obtained. § 673.3091 . . . Id. § 673.3091(2). . . . standing to foreclose as a person not in possession of the note who is entitled to enforce under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . . § 673.3091(1). . . . Id. § 673.3091(2). . . . Stat. § 673.3091. . . .
. . . Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2012), sets forth the requirements for a person not in possession . . . instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.” § 673.3091 . . .
. . . not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s[ection] 673.3091 . . .
. . . .” § 673.3091(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .
. . . rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the note who is entitled to enforce under section 673.3091 . . . (citing § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2009)). . . .
. . . might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument,” as required by section 673.3091 . . .
. . . is entitled to enforce the instrument, but has lost'the Mortgage Note pursuant to Florida Statutes § 673.3091 . . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . . Therefore, PennyMac had to satisfy the requirements outlined in section 673.3091 in order to prevail. . . . Section 673.3091 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) A person not in possession of an instrument . . . See § 673.3091(1). . . .
. . . not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s[ection] 673.3091 . . .
. . . to reestablish the lost note, Appellant was required to satisfy the requirements detailed in section 673.3091 . . . possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. § 673.3091 . . .
. . . if Defendant cannot meet the requirements to enforce the Loan under Florida Statutes, §§ 673.3011 or 673.3091 . . . Plaintiff has cited no authority to support the proposition that Florida Statutes, §§ 673.3011 and 673.3091 . . .
. . . the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the lost note under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . . § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. Mr. . . .
. . . Section 673.3091(l)(a)-(c), Florida Statutes (2014) provides: (1) A person not in possession of an instrument . . . enforcement under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the note and the party’s right to enforce it. § 673.3091 . . .
. . . . §§ 673.3011, 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2016) (emphasis added). . . . establish standing to file suit, in addition to establishing the lost note requirements of section 673.3091 . . . See §§ 673.3011, 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .
. . . The Poags' argue that Nationstar failed to prove reestablishment of the lost note under section 673.3091 . . . On September 18, 2012, Nations-tar filed a complaint to reestablish a lost note under section'673.3091 . . . “A finding that a lost note is reestablished, under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, is reversible . . . Corp., 185 So.3d 645, 645-46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting § 673.3091, Fla. . . . Section 673.3091 provides the requirements for entitlement to enforce a lost note as follows: (1) A person . . . court correctly denied enforcement óf the note, but erred in reestablishing the note under section 673.3091 . . . Section 673.3091, which has more difficult enforcement standards, does not itself set forth reestablishment . . . The question of whether section 673.3091 displaces- section 71.011 as to the standards for reestablishing . . . (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (stating that “Establishing a lost negotiable instrument is governed by section 673.3091 . . . reestablished under the plain language of section 71.011, ■ but that its enforcement is governed by section 673.3091 . . .
. . . Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2012), sets out the requirements for reestablishing á lost note. . . . possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. § 673.3091 . . .
. . . person not in possession' of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . .
. . . not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section] 673.3091 . . .
. . . not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to sfeetion] 673.3091 . . . not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to sfeetion] 673.3091 . . . JPMorgan would have to prove: (1) it was the owner, and (2) reestablishment of the lost note under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the note who is entitled to enforce under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . complaint, HSBC moved to amend to include a count for reestablishment of the note pursuant to section 673.3091 . . . “A finding that a lost note is reestablished under 673.3091, Florida Statutes is reversible upon the. . . . Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, establishes the requirements to enforce a lost note: A person not . . . possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. § 673.3091 . . . note and provide security to the obligor in the event some other person seeks to enforce the note. § 673.3091 . . .
. . . See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .
. . . Stat. 673.3091 to enforce-the lost, destroyed or stolen Note.” . . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . . It therefore had to satisfy the requirements detailed in section 673.3091 of the Florida Statutes to . . . Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means. § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . the time the original was lost, it satisfied all of the requirements of section 673.3011 and section 673.3091 . . .
. . . person not in possession of the ■instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . .
. . . the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the lost note under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . . § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . .” § 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . Stat. (2015)., Accordingly, because both sections 673.3091(2) and 702.11(1) are important provisions . . . It also incorporates the requirements of section 673.3091 (Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen . . . It is also designed to comply with section 673.3091; Florida Statutes (2013). . . . Adequate protection as required by sections' 702.11 (2013) and 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes (2013), . . .
. . . rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the note who is entitled to enforce under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . . § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . Proof by affidavit attached to the complaint, as required under the 2018 amendment to section 673.3091 . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 673.3091(1), Florida Statutes (2014), a person not in possession of an instrument . . . an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is riot amenable to service of process. , ; § 673.3091 . . . note “must prove the terms of the instrument and the [party’s] right to enforce the instrument.”; § 673.3091 . . . against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument.” § 673.3091 . . . the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the lost note under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . A finding that a lost note is reestablished, under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, is reversible . . . plaintiff Wacho-via Bank, N.A. filed its complaint to rees tablish a lost promissory note, under section 673.3091 . . . Section 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes, provides that “[a] person seeking enforcement of an instrument . . . alleged that it did not possess the note and was seeking to reestablish, a lost note, under section 673.3091 . . . Wells Fargo needed to prove Wachovia was entitled to enforce the note when possession was lost. § 673.3091 . . .
. . . Boumarates argue that the Bank failed to prove its entitlement to enforce the lost note under section 673.3091 . . . Section 673.3091 sets out when a person not in possession of a negotiable instrument may enforce the . . . Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means. § 673.3091 (l)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat.; see also Deakter v. . . . See § 673.3091(l)(a), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . . See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .
. . . foreclose a mortgage and to reestablish and enforce the lost note and attached allonges under section 673.3091 . . . See § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Beaumont v. . . .
. . . . § 673.3091(1), did not provide adequate protection against third-party claims under Fla. . . . . § 673.3091(2), and had unclean hands. We reject these arguments and affirm. I. . . . Stat. § 673.3091(1). Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So.2d 725, 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). . . . Stat. § 673.3091(1). . . . Stat. § 673.3091(2). . . .
. . . In Count I, Aurora alleged that it sought to “reestablish a promissory note under Section 673.3091, Florida . . . Aurora’s lost note allegations in the original complaint, pursuant to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the note who is entitled to enforce under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s[ection] 673.3091 . . .
. . . not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s[ection] 673.3091 . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . .
. . . that the claimant is entitled to enforce a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument pursuant to section 673.3091 . . . Adequate protection as required under section 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes, shall be provided before . . . 673.3011, Florida Statutes, which defines a person entitled to enforce an instrument under section 673.3091 . . . It is also designed to comply with section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2013). . . . Adequate protection as required by sections 702.11 (2013) and 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes (2013), must . . .
. . . Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2013), governs the enforcement of lost notes: 673.3091. . . . mortgage foreclosure, the following constitute reason able means of providing adequate protection under s. 673.3091 . . .
. . . Count two sought to reestablish a lost or destroyed promissory note under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . 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 673.3091(l)(b). . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . .
. . . For the requirements to reestablish a lost note we look to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2007). . . . Section 673.3091(1) provides as follows: (1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled . . . Section 673.3091(2) requires a person seeking enforcement of a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument . . . Bank failed to prove the terms of the note under section 673.3091(2) or its right to enforce the note . . . under section 673.3091 (l)(b). . . .
. . . tender the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the note under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . for foreclosure and a second count to re-establish a lost instrument (the note) pursuant to section 673.3091 . . .
. . . tender the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the note under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to § 673.3091 . . .
. . . occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the[se] instrument[s]” as required by section 673.3091 . . . See § 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2010) . . . . Section 673.3091 of the Florida Statutes governing reestablishment of lost instruments provides: Enforcement . . .
. . . See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . . § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. . . . Beaumont against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. § 673.3091 . . . instrument who is entitled to reestablish a lost, destroyed or stolen instrument pursuant to section 673.3091 . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . .
. . . In the count to reestablish the note pursuant to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2009), U.S. . . . instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.” § 673.3091 . . .
. . . of the foreclosure complaint in this case, the promissory note was lost or by what entity- Section 673.3091 . . .
. . . the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the lost note under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 673.3091 . . .
. . . promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the lost note under Florida Statute Section 673.3091 . . .
. . . the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the lost note under section 673.3091 . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . .
. . . that the promissory note, which was lost, cannot be re-established under the 2004 version of section 673.3091 . . . In this action, MERS relied on section 673.3091, Florida Statutes. . . . The 2003 version of section 673.3091, which we apply here, required a person seeking to enforce a lost . . . The 2003 version of section 673.3091 provides, in pertinent part: (1) A person not in possession of an . . . We need not resolve, here, whether the 2004 amendment to section 673.3091 was substantive, as argued . . .
. . . . § 673.3091. . . . Furthermore, neither Dasma or Ribonnet has made any attempt to reestablish the note pursuant to § 673.3091 . . .
. . . for a party to enforce a lost, destroyed or stolen instrument, it must comply with Florida Statute 673.3091 . . .
. . . Section 673.3091(l)(c) specifies the requirements for a holder to enforce an instrument when the original . . . [e.s.] § 673.3091(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004). . . . See § 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . and either the original must be produced, or the lost document must be reestablished under section 673.3091 . . . See section 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .
. . . See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .
. . . predecessor in interest possessed the note and did not otherwise satisfy the requirements of section 673.3091 . . . was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when-loss of possession occurred.” § 673.3091 . . . Section 673.3091 provides, in part: (1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce . . . Likewise, here, where State Street failed to comply with section 673.3091, the trial court correctly . . . Because EMC could not enforce the lost note under section 673.3091, it had no power of enforcement which . . .
. . . “the plaintiff could not demonstrate his entitlement to enforce a lost note under Florida Statute § 673.3091 . . . See § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). . . . Section 673.3091(1)(e) provides that the instrument must be lost, destroyed or stolen; in short, the . . . See § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). . . . See § 673.3091(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993). . . .
. . . property where appellee did not produce the original note and mortgage and did not comply with section 673.3091 . . . On appeal, appellant claims that appellee could not comply with section 673.3091, controlling the reestablishment . . .
. . . person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 . . . Neither of the circumstances listed in 673.3091 and 673.4181(4) is present here. . . .
. . . .” § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .
. . . Establishing a lost negotiable instrument is governed by a different statute, section 673.3091, Florida . . . requirements than the former, and the trial court correctly concluded that the husband did not satisfy section 673.3091 . . .