Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 674.401 (2025)

When bank may charge customer’s account.

✓ 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

674.401 When bank may charge customer’s account.—

(1) A bank may charge against the account of a customer an item that is properly payable from that account even though the charge creates an overdraft. An item is properly payable if it is authorized by the customer and is in accordance with any agreement between the customer and bank.

(2) A customer is not liable for the amount of an overdraft if the customer neither signed the item nor benefited from the proceeds of the item.

(3) A bank may charge against the account of a customer a check that is otherwise properly payable from the account, even though payment was made before the date of the check, unless the customer has given notice to the bank of the postdating describing the check with reasonable certainty. The notice is effective for the period stated in s. 674.403(2) for stop-payment orders and must be received at such time and in such manner as to afford the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before the bank takes any action with respect to the check described in s. 674.303. If a bank charges against the account of a customer a check before the date stated in the notice of postdating, the bank is liable for damages for the loss resulting from its act. The loss may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under s. 674.402.

(4) A bank that in good faith makes payment to a holder may charge the indicated account of its customer according to:

(a) The original terms of the altered item; or

(b) The terms of the completed item, even though the bank knows the item has been completed, unless the bank has notice that the completion was improper.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 38, ch. 92-82.

Note.—s. 4-401, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 674.15-674.17, 675.32.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Anderson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. ex rel. BankAtlantic, LLC, 119 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Anderson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. ex rel. BankAtlantic, LLC, 119 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 2× “BB & T contends that the Negligence Plaintiffs’ common law claims are displaced by the loss allocation principles in Fla. Stat. §§ 674.401 and 670.204, and by the absolute liability preclusions in Fla.”

Mjz Corp. v. Gulfstream First Bank, 420 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). · cites it 2× “Section 674.401(1), Florida Statutes (1981), states the following: "As against its customer, a bank may charge against his account any item which is otherwise properly payable from that account even though the charge creates an overdraft.”

Fed. Ins. Co., Cross-Appellee v. Ncnb Nat'l Bank of North Carolina, Cross-Appellant, Ncnb Nat'l Bank of Florida, 958 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir. 1992). “Section 401 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (Fla.Stat. § 674.401(1)) similarly contemplates that a bank will pay only in accordance with its contractual obligations to its customers.”

Burdine-Coakley v. Capital Bank, 542 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). · cites it 2× “Coles's account, see § 674.401, Fla. Stat. (1983), was the plaintiff's failure to comply with section 674.”

Brown v. Lee Cnty. Bank, 501 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). · cites it 2× “Section 674.401(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides: (1) As against its customer, a bank may charge against his account any item which is otherwise properly payable from that account even though the charge creates an overdraft.”

Anderson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “More specifically, BB & T contends that §§ 674.401 and 670.204, Florida Statutes, codifying U.”

Reneg Corp v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (S.D. Fla. 2025). · cites it 22× “Based on this conduct, Plaintiff asserts five claims against Defendant: civil theft (Count I), conversion (Count II), violation of Fla. Stat. § 674.401 (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), and breach of the Deposit Account Agreement (Count V).”

Dirk v. State, 305 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1974). “See Section 674.401, F.S. Finally, it appears to me that the statute in its present form, with its ease of proof facilitated by subsection (6), has been abused for private purposes, namely the collection of debts.”

Doherty v. Regions Bank (M.D. Fla. 2019). “§ 674.401 (1) and is therefore preempted by the U.”

List Indus., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D. Fla. 2021). “§ 674.401 , which prohibits a bank from making payment on a check not properly payable, e.”

DYNAMITE ENTERPRIESE, INC. v. Eagle Nat'l Bank of Miami, 517 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). · cites it 2× “Plainly, a check written on an account with insufficient funds is still a payable item from the customer's account because the bank, in its discretion, may honor the overdrawn check and thereafter charge the customer's account under Section 674.”

Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 212 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2000). “Under Fla. Stat. § 674.401 (1), a check that would not otherwise be properly payable becomes properly payable if it is authorized by the customer and is in accordance with the banking agreement.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— 674.401(1) — 5 cases

Mjz Corp. v. Gulfstream First Bank, 420 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “Section 674.401(1), Florida Statutes (1981), states the following: "As against its customer, a bank may charge against his account any item which is otherwise properly payable from that account even though the charge creates an overdraft.”

Brown v. Lee Cnty. Bank, 501 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). “Section 674.401(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides: (1) As against its customer, a bank may charge against his account any item which is otherwise properly payable from that account even though the charge creates an overdraft.”

Reneg Corp v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (S.D. Fla. 2025). “Based on this conduct, Plaintiff asserts five claims against Defendant: civil theft (Count I), conversion (Count II), violation of Fla. Stat. § 674.401 (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), and breach of the Deposit Account Agreement (Count V).”

DYNAMITE ENTERPRIESE, INC. v. Eagle Nat'l Bank of Miami, 517 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “Plainly, a check written on an account with insufficient funds is still a payable item from the customer's account because the bank, in its discretion, may honor the overdrawn check and thereafter charge the customer's account under Section 674.”

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.