The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Chapter 670
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: FUNDS TRANSFERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 670.207

670.207 Misdescription of beneficiary.—

(1) Subject to subsection (2), if, in a payment order received by the beneficiary’s bank, the name, bank account number, or other identification of the beneficiary refers to a nonexistent or unidentifiable person or account, no person has rights as a beneficiary of the order and acceptance of the order cannot occur.

(2) If a payment order received by the beneficiary’s bank identifies the beneficiary both by name and by an identifying or bank account number and the name and number identify different persons, the following rules apply:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), if the beneficiary’s bank does not know that the name and number refer to different persons, it may rely on the number as the proper identification of the beneficiary of the order. The beneficiary’s bank need not determine whether the name and number refer to the same person.

(b) If the beneficiary’s bank pays the person identified by name or knows that the name and number identify different persons, no person has rights as beneficiary except the person paid by the beneficiary’s bank if that person was entitled to receive payment from the originator of the funds transfer. If no person has rights as beneficiary, acceptance of the order cannot occur.

(3) If a payment order described in subsection (2) is accepted, the originator’s payment order described the beneficiary inconsistently by name and number, and the beneficiary’s bank pays the person identified by number as permitted by paragraph (2)(a), the following rules apply:

(a) If the originator is a bank, the originator is obliged to pay its order.

(b) If the originator is not a bank and proves that the person identified by number was not entitled to receive payment from the originator, the originator is not obliged to pay its order unless the originator’s bank proves that the originator, before acceptance of the originator’s order, had notice that payment of a payment order issued by the originator might be made by the beneficiary’s bank on the basis of an identifying or bank account number even if it identifies a person different from the named beneficiary. Proof of notice may be made by any admissible evidence. The originator’s bank satisfies the burden of proof if it proves that the originator, before the payment order was accepted, signed a writing stating the information to which the notice relates.

(4) In a case governed by paragraph (2)(a), if the beneficiary’s bank rightfully pays the person identified by number and that person was not entitled to receive payment from the originator, the amount paid may be recovered from that person to the extent allowed by the law governing mistake and restitution as follows:

(a) If the originator is obliged to pay its payment order as stated in subsection (3), the originator has the right to recover.

(b) If the originator is not a bank and is not obliged to pay its payment order, the originator’s bank has the right to recover.

History.—s. 1, ch. 91-70.

F.S. 670.207 on Google Scholar

F.S. 670.207 on Casetext

Amendments to 670.207

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 670.207

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 670.207.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

PETER E. SHAPIRO, P. A. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 352 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (S.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . This case is governed by section 670.207 of the Florida Statutes. . . . If no person has rights as beneficiary, acceptance of the order cannot occur. § 670.207(2) (emphasis . . . Fla Stat. § 670.207, cmt 2. (emphasis added). . . . Stat. § 670.207 cmt. 2 ("Beneficiary's Bank has no duty to determine whether there is a conflict and . . . Fla Stat. § 670.207, cmt 2. . . .

A. TRUDEL, v. SUNTRUST BANK,, 223 F. Supp. 3d 71 (D.D.C. 2016)

. . . . § 670.207; see Corfan, 715 So.2d at 969-71 (holding this provision to be exclusive). . . .

MARTIN v. FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, A, 909 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . this case would ‘create rights, duties and liabilities inconsistent’ with those set forth in section 670.207 . . .

WARTER, S. A. a v. BOSTON SECURITIES, S. A. N. A. N. A., 380 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . . § 670.207 (misdescription of beneficiary). (Reply, Ex. 20, ¶ 36-113.) . . .

IMPACT COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICS, INC. a v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. a, 852 So. 2d 946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Ocean Bank, 715 So.2d 967, [sic] (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the third district held that section 670.207, Florida . . . While the wording of section 670.207 can be said to “displace” the common law action, and the official . . .

INTERNATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, N. A. v. SHINITZKY S. A. N. A., 849 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . A single statutory claim is asserted against petitioner for an alleged violation of section 670.207(1 . . .

BURTMAN, v. TECHNICAL CHEMICALS AND PRODUCTS, INC. a LLP, a, 724 So. 2d 672 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Weekly D1407 (Fla. 3d DCA June 10, 1998), the third district held that section 670.207, Florida Statutes . . . While the wording of section 670.207 can be said to “displace” the common law action, and the official . . .

CORFAN BANCO ASUNCION PARAGUAY, a v. OCEAN BANK, a, 715 So. 2d 967 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . In my view, the trial court’s well-reasoned and pragmatic approach to the interpretation of section 670.207 . . . More important, the language of section 670.207 does not proscribe the actions taken by Ocean Bank. . . . Section 670.207 precludes ■acceptance of a wire transfer order only if “the name, account number, or . . . Corfan Bank proceeded on two claims, one based on the section 670.207, Florida Statutes (1995), which . . . not abrogate the basic tenets of commercial law, found that Ocean Bank had not contravened section 670.207 . . . We begin with a review of the exact language of section 670.207(1), Florida Statutes: (1) Subject to . . . this case would "create rights, duties and liabilities inconsistent” with those set forth in section 670.207 . . . Section 670.207 does not contemplate such a defense. . . .