Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 675.109 (2025)
Fraud and forgery.
✓ 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
675.109 Fraud and forgery.—
(1) If a presentation is made that appears on its face strictly to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, but a required document is forged or materially fraudulent, or honor of the presentation would facilitate a material fraud by the beneficiary on the issuer or applicant:
(a) The issuer shall honor the presentation, if honor is demanded by:
1. A nominated person who has given value in good faith and without notice of forgery or material fraud;
2. A confirmer who has honored its confirmation in good faith;
3. A holder in due course of a draft drawn under the letter of credit which was taken after acceptance by the issuer or nominated person; or
4. An assignee of the issuer’s or nominated person’s deferred obligation that was taken for value and without notice of forgery or material fraud after the obligation was incurred by the issuer or nominated person.
(b) The issuer, acting in good faith, may honor or dishonor the presentation in any other case.
(2) If an applicant claims that a required document is forged or materially fraudulent or that honor of the presentation would facilitate a material fraud by the beneficiary on the issuer or applicant, a court of competent jurisdiction may temporarily or permanently enjoin the issuer from honoring a presentation or grant similar relief against the issuer or other persons only if the court finds that:
(a) The relief is not prohibited under the law applicable to an accepted draft or deferred obligation incurred by the issuer;
(b) A beneficiary, issuer, or nominated person who may be adversely affected is adequately protected against loss that it may suffer because the relief is granted;
(c) All of the conditions to entitle a person to the relief under the laws of this state have been met; and
(d) On the basis of the information submitted to the court, the applicant is more likely than not to succeed under its claim of forgery or material fraud and the person demanding honor does not qualify for protection under paragraph (1)(a).
Note.—s. 5-109, U.C.C.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1978–2010 · leading case: Jim Macon Bldg. Contractors. Inc. v. Lake Cnty., 763 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
Jim Macon Bldg. Contractors. Inc. v. Lake Cnty., 763 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). “3d DCA 1979); see also § 675.109(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993); Banco Gen.”
Intrinsic Values Corp. v. Superintendencia, 806 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). “"Material fraud by the beneficiary occurs only when the beneficiary has no colorable right to expect honor and where there is no basis in fact to support such a right to honor." U.C.C. § 5-109 (1999) cmt. 1. Here, Intrinsic was aware that the contract had been canceled prior to…”
Braun v. Intercontinental Bank, 466 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). “§ 675.109(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981). See Fidelity National Bank, 371 So.”
Cargill, Inc. v. Sunlight Foods, Inc., 586 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “" § 675.109(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). When the beneficiary presents the required documents to the bank, the bank: must examine [the] documents with care so as to ascertain that on their face they appear to comply with the terms of the credit but unless otherwise agreed assumes…”
Lennar Homes, LLC v. v. VENTURES, LLC, 988 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). “We find that Lennar has failed to demonstrate that V Ventures' presentation letter was "forged or materially fraudulent or that honor of the presentation would facilitate a material fraud by the beneficiary on the issuer or applicant.”
Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Wendel (In Re Air Conditioning, Inc. of Stuart), 72 B.R. 657 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “The independence of the letter of credit is well established. It is a fundamental principle of commercial transactions that a letter of credit is an undertaking solely of the issuing bank to the beneficiary; it is independent of the obligations of the issuing bank and the…”
Lewis State Bank v. Advance Mortg. Corp., 362 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). “00 [3] Section 675.109(2), F.S. (1977), requires the issuing bank to examine the documents with care in order to assure they appear regular on their face.”
Jaffe v. Bank of Am., N.A., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2009). “Plaintiffs’ first complaint stated: “This is an action for injunctive relief pursuant to § 675.109(2), Florida Statutes.” (DE # 1).”
Jaffe v. Bank of Am. Corp., 399 F. App'x 535 (11th Cir. 2010). “In both their original and amended complaints, the Jaffes expressly sought an injunction against BOA pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 675.109 (2). Under the plain language of Fla.”
Jaffe v. Bank of Am. Corp. (11th Cir. 2010). “In both their original and amended complaints, the Jaffes expressly sought an injunction against BOA pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 675.109 (2). Under the plain language of Fla.”
— 675.109(1)(a) — 3 cases
Jim Macon Bldg. Contractors. Inc. v. Lake Cnty., 763 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). “3d DCA 1979); see also § 675.109(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993); Banco Gen.”
Braun v. Intercontinental Bank, 466 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). “§ 675.109(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981). See Fidelity National Bank, 371 So.”
Cargill, Inc. v. Sunlight Foods, Inc., 586 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “" § 675.109(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). When the beneficiary presents the required documents to the bank, the bank: must examine [the] documents with care so as to ascertain that on their face they appear to comply with the terms of the credit but unless otherwise agreed assumes…”
— 675.109(1)(b) — 1 case
Jim Macon Bldg. Contractors. Inc. v. Lake Cnty., 763 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). “3d DCA 1979); see also § 675.109(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993); Banco Gen.”
— 675.109(2) — 6 cases
Intrinsic Values Corp. v. Superintendencia, 806 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). “"Material fraud by the beneficiary occurs only when the beneficiary has no colorable right to expect honor and where there is no basis in fact to support such a right to honor." U.C.C. § 5-109 (1999) cmt. 1. Here, Intrinsic was aware that the contract had been canceled prior to…”
Braun v. Intercontinental Bank, 466 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). “§ 675.109(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981). See Fidelity National Bank, 371 So.”
Lennar Homes, LLC v. v. VENTURES, LLC, 988 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). “We find that Lennar has failed to demonstrate that V Ventures' presentation letter was "forged or materially fraudulent or that honor of the presentation would facilitate a material fraud by the beneficiary on the issuer or applicant.”
Cargill, Inc. v. Sunlight Foods, Inc., 586 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “" § 675.109(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). When the beneficiary presents the required documents to the bank, the bank: must examine [the] documents with care so as to ascertain that on their face they appear to comply with the terms of the credit but unless otherwise agreed assumes…”
Lewis State Bank v. Advance Mortg. Corp., 362 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). “00 [3] Section 675.109(2), F.S. (1977), requires the issuing bank to examine the documents with care in order to assure they appear regular on their face.”
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.