Cases from cite.case.law:

BRAHAM, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,, 170 So. 3d 844 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . We held that section 655.85, Florida Statutes (2009), prohibits a bank from charging such a fee. . . . It also concluded that section 655.85 affords no private cause of action. . . . For these reasons, the trial court dismissed Appellant’s section 655.85 claim, as well as other statutory . . . Section 655.85 does not pertain to the acquisition or retention of an investment. . . . The state státute at issue here, section 655.85, does not fall into any of these categories. . . .

McDANIEL, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK,, 568 F. App'x 729 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . alleging violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) and Florida Statutes §§ 655.85 . . .

PEREIRA, De v. REGIONS BANK,, 752 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 655.85. In Baptista v. . . . . § 21 et seq., preempted Florida Statute § 655.85 with respect to national banks. Id. at 1198. . . . Here, we consider whether federal law preempts § 655.85 with respect to out-of-state state banks. . . . Therefore, even if § 655.85 would otherwise apply to Regions, federal law preempts its application. . . . 12 U.S.C. § 1831a(j)(l), so too does it preempt § 655.85 with respect to Regions. . . .

PEREIRA De v. REGIONS BANK,, 918 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . Defendant in a complaint filed on August 7, 2012, in state court: (1) violation of Florida Statute § 655.85 . . . Stat. § 655.85 (2012). . . . As previously discussed, Florida Statute § 655.85 is inapplicable to national banks under the NBA and . . . Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Florida Statute § 655.85. B. . . . PNC Bank with respect to its holding that Florida Statute § 655.85 is not preempted by federal law. . . .

ASENCIO, A v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 905 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (M.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . allows banks to charge fees for services); Baptista (affirming district court's ruling that section 655.85 . . .

BAPTISTA, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,, 91 So. 3d 230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . s policy of charging a $5 service fee to cash a check drawn on one of its accounts violates section 655.85 . . . The trial court ruled that section 655.85 did not apply to the transaction here. . . . Appellant filed a class action lawsuit against Appel-lee, alleging that it had violated section 655.85 . . . Upon Appellee’s motion, the trial court granted summary judgment, concluding that: (i) section 655.85 . . . Appellee’s alternative argument is that section 655.85 only applies in bank-to-bank transactions. . . . I agree with our conclusion concerning the meaning and applicability of section 655.85, Florida Statutes . . . Furthermore, even if section 655.85 does not establish an express prohibition to the fee charged here . . . Given our conclusion that settlement for less than par is proscribed by section 655.85, whether a bank . . .

In CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION. v. N. A. v. N. A. v. v. v. RBS N. A. v. v. TD N. A. v. TD N. A. v. TD N. A. v. TD N. A. v. PNC v. PNC v. PNC N. A. v. v. N. A., 797 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . complaint against Chase, purporting to state two causes of action for recovery: 1) violation of Section 655.85 . . . Specifically, Section 655.85 states as follows: Settlement of Checks. . . . Stat. § 655.85 (emphasis added). . . . As such, in determining if Section 655.85, Florida Statutes, was preempted by the NBA, the Eleventh Circuit . . .

BAPTISTA, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A. a. k. a., 640 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 655.85. Second, she brought a claim for unjust enrichment. . . . Stat. § 655.85 did not apply to Baptista because that statute only regulates fees charged between banks . . . Stat. § 655.85. . . . Stat. § 655.85 is preempted by the OCC’s regulations promulgated pursuant to the NBA. . . . Stat. § 655.85, it too is preempted. . . .

BRITT, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A., 52 So. 3d 809 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . cashing payroll checks (written by Britt’s employer, an account holder at the Bank), violates section 655.85 . . . Thus, even assuming arguendo that section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes prohibits the Bank from charging . . . June 4, 2010)(holding that section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes is preempted by federal law). . . . Section 655.85 of the Florida Statutes (2008) provides: 655.85 Settlement of checks. . . .

SCADIF, S. A. a v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK, a, 208 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 655.85, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added); Id. . . . .