Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 674.303 (2025)
When items subject to notice, stop-payment order, legal process, or setoff; order in which items may be charged or certified.
✓ 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
674.303 When items subject to notice, stop-payment order, legal process, or setoff; order in which items may be charged or certified.—
(1) Any knowledge, notice, or stop-payment order received by, legal process served upon, or setoff exercised by a payor bank comes too late to terminate, suspend, or modify the bank’s right or duty to pay an item or to charge its customer’s account for the item if the knowledge, notice, stop-payment order, or legal process is received or served and a reasonable time for the bank to act thereon expires or the setoff is exercised after the earliest of the following:
(a) The bank accepts or certifies the item;
(b) The bank pays the item in cash;
(c) The bank settles for the item without having a right to revoke the settlement under statute, clearinghouse rule, or agreement;
(d) The bank becomes accountable for the amount of the item under s. 674.302 dealing with the payor bank’s responsibility for late return of items; or
(e) With respect to checks, a cutoff hour no earlier than 1 hour after the opening of the next banking day after the banking day on which the bank received the check and no later than the close of that next banking day or, if no cutoff hour is fixed, the close of the next banking day after the banking day on which the bank received the check.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), items may be accepted, paid, certified, or charged to the indicated account of its customer in any order.
Note.—s. 4-303, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 676.55, 659.26.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1982–1992 · leading case: Ebsary Found. Co. v. Barnett Bank of South Fla., Na, 569 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Ebsary Found. Co. v. Barnett Bank of South Fla., Na, 569 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). “In so doing, we reject Ebsary's contention that the controversy is governed by section 674.303, Florida Statutes (1989), which pertains only to disputes as to the payment of "items" *807 presented to a bank and does not concern controversies, such as this one, between creditors…”
Capital Bank v. Schuler, 421 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). “, is signed by such customer or authorized person, describes with certainty the item on which payment is to be stopped, and is served upon and received by an officer of the bank at the bankinghouse during regular banking hours and in such time and in such manner as to afford the…”
Brown v. Lee Cnty. Bank, 501 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). “§ 674.303, Fla.Stat. (1983). The fact that the bank told her that it had stopped the check when in fact it had failed to do so in time is irrelevant.”
Crosby v. Lewis, 523 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). “A receiver appointed by the court to control a party's assets stands in the shoes of the person for whom the receiver was appointed, which person in this case was without question attempting to defraud the bank's customer, hence the receiver was not a holder in due course.”
Barnett Bank of Jacksonville v. Warren Fin., Inc., 532 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). “" Since the cashier's check is "accepted" upon issuance, a bank or a customer of the bank may not stop payment under UCC 4-303 (section 674.303) as a stop order comes too late to terminate the duty to pay the check if the stop order is received after the bank has accepted the…”
In re Tom Stimus Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 148 B.R. 633 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992). “§ 674.303, while a payor bank is processing a check for payment, the bank may refuse to pay the check because the bank has received a legal notice affecting the check or has chosen to exercise its right of setoff against the drawer’s account.”
— 674.303(1) — 1 case
Crosby v. Lewis, 523 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). “A receiver appointed by the court to control a party's assets stands in the shoes of the person for whom the receiver was appointed, which person in this case was without question attempting to defraud the bank's customer, hence the receiver was not a holder in due course.”
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.