Home
Jacksonville Location Phone Call/Texting Policy How do Fees Work?
Criminal Defense DUI Defense Foreclosure Defense Copyright Workers Compensation Attorney Jacksonville Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statutes Georgia Code Jacksonville Accident Attorney Real Estate Attorney Jacksonville Florida Criminal Lawyer Jacksonville Notary Public
Menu
904-383-7448
Florida Statute 702.11 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 702.11 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 702.11

The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
Title XL
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
Chapter 702
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGES AND STATUTORY LIENS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 702.11
702.11 Adequate protections for lost, destroyed, or stolen notes in mortgage foreclosure.—
(1) In connection with a mortgage foreclosure, the following constitute reasonable means of providing adequate protection under s. 673.3091, if so found by the court:
(a) A written indemnification agreement by a person reasonably believed sufficiently solvent to honor such an obligation;
(b) A surety bond;
(c) A letter of credit issued by a financial institution;
(d) A deposit of cash collateral with the clerk of the court; or
(e) Such other security as the court may deem appropriate under the circumstances.

Any security given shall be on terms and in amounts set by the court, for a time period through the running of the statute of limitations for enforcement of the underlying note, and conditioned to indemnify and hold harmless the maker of the note against any loss or damage, including principal, interest, and attorney fees and costs, that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the note.

(2) Any person who wrongly claims to be the holder of or pursuant to s. 673.3011 to be entitled to enforce a lost, stolen, or destroyed note and causes the mortgage secured thereby to be foreclosed is liable to the actual holder of the note, without limitation to any adequate protections given, for actual damages suffered together with attorney fees and costs of the actual holder of the note in enforcing rights under this subsection. In addition, the actual holder of the note may pursue recovery directly against any adequate protections given.
(a) The actual holder of the note is not required to pursue recovery against the maker of the note or any guarantor thereof as a condition precedent to pursuing remedies under this section.
(b) This section does not limit or restrict the ability of the actual holder of the note to pursue any other claims or remedies it may have against the maker, the person who wrongly claimed to be the holder, or any person who facilitated or participated in the claim to the note or enforcement thereof.
History.—s. 7, ch. 2013-137.

F.S. 702.11 on Google Scholar

F.S. 702.11 on Casetext

Amendments to 702.11


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 702.11
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 702.11.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All

  1. Debish v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    240 So. 3d 16 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses
    "Because the court's consideration of the issue of adequate protection is a condition of entering a judgment that reestablishes a lost note, its failure to provide adequate protection, or to make a finding that none is needed under the circumstances, requires reversal and remand for the court to consider the issue." Blitch , 185 So.3d at 646. As noted in Blitch , the requirement of adequate protection is generally satisfied "through a written indemnification agreement in the final judgment, the posting of a surety bond, a letter of credit, a deposit of cash collateral with the court, or ‘[s]uch other security as the court may deem appropriate under the circumstances.’ " Id. (quoting § 702.11(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014) ).

  2. Failla v. Citibank, N.A. (In re Failla)

    838 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2016)   Cited 52 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Because “surrender” means “giving up of a right or claim,” debtors who surrender their property can no longer contest a foreclosure action. When the debtors act to preserve their rights to the property “by way of adversarial litigation,” they have not “relinquish[ed] ... all of their legal rights to the property, including the rights to possess and use it.” White , 487 F.3d at 206 (emphasis omitted). The “retention of property that is legally insulated from collection is inconsistent with surrender.” Id. at 207. Ordinarily, when debtors surrender property to a creditor, the creditor obtains it immediately and is free to sell it. Assocs. Commercial Corp. v. Rash , 520 U.S. 953, 962, 117 S.Ct. 1879, 138 L.Ed.2d 148 (1997). Granted, a creditor must take some legal action to recover real property—namely, a foreclosure action. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 702.01 –702.11. Foreclosure proceedings ensure that debtors do not have to determine unilaterally issues of priority if there are multiple creditors or surplus if the value of the property exceeds the liability. See Plummer , 513 B.R. at 144. Debtors who surrender property must get out of the creditor's way. “[I]n order for…

  3. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Angeloni

    199 So. 3d 492 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    We do not consider the application, if any, of section 702.11, Florida Statutes (2014), because the homeowners failed to raise this argument as part of their motion for involuntary dismissal, so it was waived.
    PAGE 494

  4. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Benoit

    190 So. 3d 235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Nevertheless, a judgment of foreclosure does not always require surrender of the original note. For example, where a plaintiff satisfies the requirements for the enforcement of a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument, the plaintiff may foreclose on a property even where the plaintiff no longer has possession of the original note. See § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2004). The danger that the original note might be negotiated to a bona fide purchaser for value is abrogated by the requirement that the one seeking to enforce a lost note must indemnify the defendant. Id. ; see also § 702.11, Fla. Stat. (2013).
    PAGE 237

  5. Blitch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp.

    185 So. 3d 645 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). As this statutory language makes clear, and contrary to the Blitches' argument here, adequate protection is not an element of the Bank's prima facie case. Instead, it is a post-proof condition of the entry of the final judgment. See Fifth Third Bank v. Alaedin & Majdi Invs., Inc., No. 8:11–CV–2206–T–17TBM, 2012 WL 1137104, at *3 (M.D.Fla. Apr. 4, 2012) (noting that after the plaintiff showed that it was entitled to enforce the note at the time it lost the note, “the Court is required to address the issue of providing adequate protection to the defaulting party against loss that might occur if a claim were brought by another party to enforce the instrument”); see also Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 118 So.3d 952, 956 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (stating that “[i]f the court is concerned that another person might attempt to enforce the original note, it may require security in favor of the payor to ensure adequate protection” (emphasis added)); Beaumont v. Bank of New York Mellon, 81 So.3d 553, 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (after discussing the deficiencies in the bank's proof, stating “[t]he trial court was also required to address the…

  6. In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure

    190 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2016)   Cited 1 times
    The Committee also agrees with comments suggesting that subdivision (d) of the rule be amended to add a reference to section 702.11, Florida Statutes, for completeness and clarity of “the adequate protections which must be provided before entry of judgment.” Subdivision (d) of the rule addresses lost, destroyed, or stolen instruments. In such cases the claimant is required to provide “adequate protection” against “loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument.” § 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2015). Section 702.11, Florida Statutes, also addresses adequate protection for lost, destroyed, or stolen notes in mortgage foreclosure and lists the acceptable reasonable means of providing adequate protection, “if so found by the court.” § 702.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). Accordingly, because both sections 673.3091(2) and 702.11(1) are important provisions regarding adequate protections, we adopt the amendment to subdivision (d) as proposed by the Committee.
    PAGE 1000

  7. Reid v. Compass Bank

    164 So. 3d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    The Legislature finds that this act is remedial in nature and applies to all mortgages encumbering real property and all promissory notes secured by a mortgage, whether executed before, on, or after the effective date of this act. In addition, the Legislature finds that s. 702.015, Florida Statutes, as created by this act, applies to cases filed on or after July 1, 2013; however, the amendments to s. 702.10, Florida Statutes, and the creation of s. 702.11, Florida Statutes, by this act, apply to causes of action pending on the effective date of this act.
    PAGE 53

  8. In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure

    153 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2014)   Cited 6 times
    2014 Adoption. This form is for installment payments with acceleration. It omits allegations about junior encumbrances, unpaid taxes, unpaid insurance premiums, other nonmonetary defaults, and for a receiver. Allegations must be added when appropriate. This form may require modification. This form is designed to incorporate the pleading requirements of section 702.015, Florida Statutes (2013), and rule 1.115. 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 be provided before the entry of final judgment.
    PAGE 265

  9. Delia v. Gmac Mortg. Corp.

    161 So. 3d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses
    702.11. Adequate protections for lost, destroyed, or stolen notes in mortgage foreclosure
    PAGE 555

  10. Verderane v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.

    772 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1985)   Cited 13 times
    An extensive set of procedural rules governs claims under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 702.11 to .394 (1985). Disputed claims, if not resolved at an informal hearing before the deputy commissioner, generally proceed to a formal proceeding before an ALJ. See id. §§ 702.316, .331, .332. Prior to the hearing, each party must submit prehearing statements enumerating the issues that will be raised at the hearing. See id. § 702.317; U.S. Dept. of Labor, OWCP, LS-18, "Prehearing Statement." Although the hearing progresses according to the issues in the prehearing statements, issues not included in the statements can be heard even though the hearing would have to be extended. See id. § 702.336.
    PAGE 778

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    DEBISH, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. ON BEHALF OF REGISTERED HOLDERS OF FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST,, 240 So. 3d 16 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . (quoting § 702.11(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014) ). . . .

    UNITED STATES v. JEPSEN,, 289 F. Supp. 3d 971 (N.D. Iowa 2018)

    . . . Opinion of Iowa Court of Appeals, Defendant's Exhibit E, 3 (citing IOWA CODE § 702.11 ). . . .

    IN RE A. FAILLA, N. A. N. v. N. A., 838 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2016)

    . . . . §§ 702.01-702.11. . . .

    IN RE A. FAILLA, N. A. N. v. N. A., 838 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2016)

    . . . . §§ 702.01-702.11. . . .

    U. S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, N. A. GSAMP v. V. ANGELONI,, 199 So. 3d 492 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . We do not consider the application, if any, of section 702.11, Florida Statutes (2014), because the homeowners . . .

    U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, CSAB v. BENOIT,, 190 So. 3d 235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . .; see also § 702.11, Fla. . . .

    BLITCH v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,, 185 So. 3d 645 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . .” § 702.11(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

    In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 190 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2016)

    . . . with comments suggesting that subdivision (d) of the rule be amended to add a reference to section 702.11 . . . Section 702.11, Florida Statutes, also addresses adequate protection for lost, destroyed, or stolen notes . . . Stat. (2015)., Accordingly, because both sections 673.3091(2) and 702.11(1) are important provisions . . . Adequate protection as required and identified under sections 673.3091(2) and 702.11(1), Florida Statutes . . . Adequate protection as required by sections' 702.11 (2013) and 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes (2013), . . .

    G. REID, v. COMPASS BANK,, 164 So. 3d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

    . . . after July 1, 2013; however, the amendments to s. 702.10, Florida Statutes, and the creation of s. 702.11 . . .

    In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 153 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2014)

    . . . Adequate protection as required by sections 702.11 (2013) and 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes (2013), must . . .

    DELIA, v. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,, 161 So. 3d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

    . . . Section 702.11(1), Florida Statutes (2013), explains the concept of adequate protection: 702.11. . . .

    UNITED STATES v. LYNCH,, 611 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2010)

    . . . Iowa Code §§ 702.11(1); 708.2(4). . . .

    ASARCO LLC, LLC, v. AMERICAS MINING CORPORATION,, 396 B.R. 278 (S.D. Tex. 2008)

    . . . This reduced Navigant’s conclusion to a range of $611.21 and $702.11. Dr. . . .

    UNITED STATES v. DOBBS, v. Jr., 449 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2006)

    . . . Compare Iowa Code § 711.2 (robbery in the first degree), § 724.26 (possession of a firearm by felon), § 702.11 . . .

    PHILLIPS, v. IOWA, Mt., 185 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Iowa 2002)

    . . . Id. at 196-97 (citing Iowa Code § 702.11). . . . Iowa Code § 702.11. . . . Instead, the forcible felonies provided in section 702.11 are capable of being categorized as either . . . Compare id. § 902.12 (listing offenses subject to 100% provision), with id. § 702.11 (defining forcible . . .

    CEASER, v. AULT,, 169 F. Supp. 2d 981 (N.D. Iowa 2001)

    . . . See Iowa Code §§ 702.11 (classifying certain offenses as forcible felonies), 708.4 (willful injury), . . . Id. at 196-97 (citing Iowa Code § 702.11). . . . Iowa Code § 702.11. . . . Instead, the forcible felonies provided in section 702.11 are capable of being categorized as either . . . Compare id. § 902.12 (listing offenses subject to 85% rule), with id. § 702.11 (defining forcible felony . . .

    S. SEILER, v. A. THALACKER,, 101 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 1996)

    . . . Iowa Code § 702.11. . . . Iowa Code § 702.11. . . .

    K. RAGLAND, v. E. HUNDLEY,, 79 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 1996)

    . . . . §§ 702.11; 707.2 (West 1993). . . . Iowa Code Ann. § 702.11 (West 1993). . . .

    J. VERDERANE, v. JACKSONVILLE SHIPYARDS, INC. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, In-, 772 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1985)

    . . . . §§ 702.11 to .394 (1985). . . .

    UNITED STATES v. ELADE REALTY CORPORATION, 157 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1946)

    . . . Reg. pp. 1830, 1831. 702.11(a) (2) (i). § 702.11(c) (1). . . .