Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 702.11 (2025)
Adequate protections for lost, destroyed, or stolen notes in mortgage foreclosure.
✓ 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
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Blitch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., 185 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
Blitch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., 185 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “” § 702.11(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014). Here, the Bank proved at the bench trial that (1) it was entitled to enforce the note when the loss of possession occurred; (2) the loss of possession was not due to a valid transfer or lawful seizure; and (3) it could no longer reasonably…”
U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Angeloni, 199 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “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.”
In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 190 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2016). “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.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Zacarie Benoit, Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys. Inc., as Nominee For First Interstate Fin. Corp., & Thacker Ltd. P'ship, 190 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “; see also § 702.11, Fla. Stat. (2013). • ■ ' Here, the parties agreed to resolve litigation through a settlement agreement and expressed, their intention to.”
Delia v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 161 So. 3d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). “Section 702.11(1), Florida Statutes (2013), explains the concept of adequate protection: 702.”
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Garcia, 538 P.3d 89 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 702.11 (1)(a)-(e) (West 2013); DiMarcantonio, 751 A.”
Thomas Debish & Michelle Debish v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 240 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “(quoting § 702.11(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014)). Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded for further proceedings.”
US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Dukes (Fla. 1st DCA 2025). “3091 and had standing to bring this 5 Section 702.11, Florida Statutes (2019), addresses adequate protections for lost, destroyed, or stolen notes in mortgage foreclosure cases.”
— 702.11(1) — 1 case
Delia v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 161 So. 3d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). “Section 702.11(1), Florida Statutes (2013), explains the concept of adequate protection: 702.”
— 702.11(1)(e) — 2 cases
Blitch v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., 185 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “” § 702.11(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014). Here, the Bank proved at the bench trial that (1) it was entitled to enforce the note when the loss of possession occurred; (2) the loss of possession was not due to a valid transfer or lawful seizure; and (3) it could no longer reasonably…”
Thomas Debish & Michelle Debish v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 240 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “(quoting § 702.11(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014)). Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded for further proceedings.”
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.