Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 673.4041 (2025)
Impostors; fictitious payees.
✓ 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
673.4041 Impostors; fictitious payees.—
(1) If an impostor, by use of the mails or otherwise, induces the issuer of an instrument to issue the instrument to the impostor, or to a person acting in concert with the impostor, by impersonating the payee of the instrument or a person authorized to act for the payee, an indorsement of the instrument by any person in the name of the payee is effective as the indorsement of the payee in favor of a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection.
(2) If a person whose intent determines to whom an instrument is payable (s. 673.1101(1) or (2)) does not intend the person identified as payee to have any interest in the instrument, or the person identified as payee of an instrument is a fictitious person, the following rules apply until the instrument is negotiated by special indorsement:
(a) Any person in possession of the instrument is its holder.
(b) An indorsement by any person in the name of the payee stated in the instrument is effective as the indorsement of the payee in favor of a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection.
(3) Under subsection (1) or subsection (2), an indorsement is made in the name of a payee if:
(a) It is made in a name substantially similar to that of the payee; or
(b) The instrument, whether or not indorsed, is deposited in a depositary bank to an account in a name substantially similar to that of the payee.
(4) With respect to an instrument to which subsection (1) or subsection (2) applies, if a person paying the instrument or taking it for value or for collection fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss resulting from payment of the instrument, the person bearing the loss may recover from the person failing to exercise ordinary care to the extent the failure to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: The Florida Bar v. Zana Holley Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2015).
The Florida Bar v. Zana Holley Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2015). “See § 673.4041(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). In late August and early September 2010, respectively, the husband’s attorney served on Respondent a request for production and standard family law interrogatories.”
United States v. 8,670.42 Seized From Regions Bank Acct. Xxxxxx5028, 759 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (N.D. Ga. 2010). “Therefore, PCPS contends that the imposter rule would shift the loss to the drawer of the checks (Medicare), rather than to the entity that cashed the checks (PCPS). However, PCPS cites no case holding that Florida's imposter rule is applicable in a federal civil forfeiture…”
Lucas v. Bankatlantic, 924 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “Section 673.4041 is crucial to the result here.”
Artistic Tile, Inc. v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (D.N.J. 2024). “)1 Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against Defendant under Fla. Stat. § 673.4041 for failure to exercise ordinary care and substantially contributing to Plaintiff’s loss from the checks.”
Artistic Tile, Inc. v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (D.N.J. 2025). “) In November 2024, this Court entered an Opinion and Order denying Chase’s motion to dismiss with respect to the three Florida checks, finding that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a claim as to the three Florida checks under UCC § 3-404(b)(i) and (d) ( Fla. Stat. §§ 673.4041 (2)…”
Sarasota Avionics Int'l, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 984 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2013). “as codified in Section 673.4041 of the Florida Statutes to avoid disgorgements of these payments is misguided.”
— 673.4041(2) — 2 cases
The Florida Bar v. Zana Holley Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2015). “See § 673.4041(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). In late August and early September 2010, respectively, the husband’s attorney served on Respondent a request for production and standard family law interrogatories.”
Lucas v. Bankatlantic, 924 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “Section 673.4041 is crucial to the result here.”
— 673.4041(2)(a) — 1 case
Lucas v. Bankatlantic, 924 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “Section 673.4041 is crucial to the result here.”
— 673.4041(3)(b) — 1 case
Lucas v. Bankatlantic, 924 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “Section 673.4041 is crucial to the result here.”
— 673.4041(4) — 1 case
Lucas v. Bankatlantic, 924 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “Section 673.4041 is crucial to the result here.”
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.