Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...the U.C.C. Akin to the time limitations imposed by the Depositor’s Agreement, the U.C'.C. imposes a duty on a customer to report disputed transactions, provided the customer; has received notice of the same. See Fla. Stat.§§ 674.406(6) (items), 670.505 (funds transfers)....

...3d DCA 1998) (citation omitted) (“As mandated by section 674.406, the customer had an obligation to examine bank statements and notify the bank within one year of any claimed errors. The customer’s failure to timely discover and report the forgeries bars his claim as a matter of law.”). Similarly, § 670.505 prohibits a customer from recovering on an unauthorized funds transfer if the customer fails to object within one year of receiving notice: If a receiving bank has received payment from its customer with respect to a payment order issued i...

...omer is precluded from asserting that , the bank is not entitled to retain the payment unless the customer notifies the bank of the customer’s objection to the payment within 1 year after the notification was re: ceived by the customer. Fla. Stat. § 670.505 (emphasis added). The Official Comment to § 670.505 notes that the provision “is in the nature of a statute of repose,” and acts as an absolute bar where the customer “has not objected to the debiting of the account within one year after the customer received notification of the debit.” Id. As with the Depositor’s Agreement, BB & T contends that none of the Contract Plaintiffs properly provided notice under either § 674.406 or § 670.505 within the requisite time frame....

...led to introduce any evidence that they timely objected to the disputed items and transfers, BB & T is entitled to summary judgment. ii. U.C.C. Article 4A Plaintiffs present two arguments in trying to escape the one-year objection requirement of § 670.505, both of which are unpersuasive....

...First, Plaintiffs challenge BankAtlantic’s security procedures, asserting that it either did not maintain a valid funds transfer security procedure or, alter *1348 natively, an unreasonable one. Next, Plaintiffs assert that the one-year respose period in § 670.505 cannot apply because Plaintiffs never received notice....

...nk and customer have agreed to a security procedure and the bank acted in good faith. See Fla. Stat. § 670.202 (l)-(2). Ultimately, these provisions are irrelevant, so long as the bank has properly provided notice of the debit, the repose period in § 670.505 is triggered. BB & T’s argument is limited to the one-year objection period. As noted, § 670.505 operates as a statute of repose and eradicates the customer’s ability to recover where the customer has received notice but has not objected to the debiting of the account within one year. See Fla. Stat. § 670.505 cmt....

...ith respect to the delivery of account statements and what manner of delivery will suffice in order to trigger the applicable limitations or repose period in which a customer is obligated to object. Plaintiffs contend that BB & T seeks to expand § 670.505 to reach situations where notice has merely been provided to the customer’s agent, and *1349 not the customer themselves....

...defines “customer” as “a person, including a bank, having an account with a bank or from whom a bank has agreed to receive payment orders.” Fla. Stat. § 670.105 (l)(c). Viewing this language in a vacuum, it would appear that notice to the “customer,” as the term is used in § 670.505, would require notice to the accountholder....

...Dupont De Nemours, 124 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1309 (S.D.Fla.2000) (“The law conclusively presumes that the agent has disclosed the knowledge or information to his or her principal, and charges the principal accordingly.”). Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ strict construction of § 670.505 is unnecessary and improper in light of the remaining definitional provisions of the U.C.C....

...) by availing themselves of the benefit of the Disputed Accounts, the Negligence Plaintiffs have ratified the Accounts; (4) the claim for refund of unauthorized and ineffective funds transfer is subject to the expired statute of repose in Fla. Stat. § 670.505 ; and (5) BB & T had no duty to investigate transactions....

...Branch Banking & Trust Co., 56 F.Supp.3d 1345, 1351-52 (S.D.Fla.2014). BB & T contends that the Negligence Plaintiffs’ common law claims are displaced by the loss allocation principles in Fla. Stat. §§ 674.401 and 670.204, and by the absolute liability preclusions in Fla. Stat. §§ 674.406 (6) and 670.505....

...the bank shall refund any payment of the payment order received from the customer .... ”). Again, like Article 4, a customer may not seek recovery on- an unauthorized funds transfer where he or she fails to object within one year of receiving notification of the transfer. Fla. Stat. § 670.505 ....

...intiffs continued to' suffer damages. Because Plaintiffs’ negligence theory is not inconsistent with the "rights, duties, and obligations under the U.C.C., Plaintiffs’ claim is not displaced. 26 e. Count III and the Statute of Repose, Fla. Stat. § 670.505 The Negligence Plaintiffs’ claim for refund of unauthorized and ineffective funds transfer (Count III of the FAC) is subject to the one-year "statute of repose set forth in Fla. "Stat. § 670.505. This provision precludes recovery if the customer fails to object within one year of receiving notice. Fla. Stat. § 670.505 (“[T]he customer is precluded from asserting that the....

...bank is not entitled to retain the payment unless the customer notifies the bank of the customer’s objection to the payment within 1 year after-the notification-was-received by the customer.”). BB & T argues that the Negligence Plaintiffs failed to timely object. In response, Plaintiffs continue to *1359 assert that § 670.505 requires actual notice to the customer before the repose period can be triggered. The Court has already addressed this issue in full, finding that Plaintiffs’ strict construction of § 670.505 is not required....

...aintiffs received notice as per Fla. Stat. §§ 671.201 (26) and 671.209(5). The repose period was triggered and the Contract Plaintiffs were obligated to object within one year. Id. Therefore, Count III of the FAC is subject to the repose period in § 670.505....

...BB & T’s Fifth and Sixth Affirmative Defenses assert that Plaintiffs’ claims related to funds or wire transfers are either barred or waived as a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to object during the one-year repose period set forth in Fla. Stat. § 670.505 ....

...Thus, Plaintiffs’ arguments are precisely those presented by BB & T’s Motion. Indeed, the arguments Plaintiffs present in support of their Motion are identical to those presented in opposition to BB & T’s Motion regarding both the Depositor’s Agreement and the application of § 670.505....

...First, Plaintiff seeks recovery for the allegedly unauthorized funds transfer under Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), codified in Florida in §§ 670.101 et seq., Florida Statutes. That claim is precluded based on UCC Article 4A's statute of repose, as enacted by Florida Statute § 670.505....

...Plaintiff states that the unauthorized transfers were both breaches of contract and a violation of UCC Article 4A. Defendant argues that any common law relief stemming from these transactions should be displaced by Article 4A and consequently precluded by the one year statute of repose in Florida Statute § 670.505....

...on, this transfer will be referred to as the "Funds Transfer." C. Plaintiff's Article 4A Claim is Precluded by the One Year Statute of Repose Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Article 4A claim is barred by the one-year statute of repose set forth in § 670.505, Florida Statutes....

...fer: *910 [T]he customer is precluded from asserting that the bank is not entitled to retain the payment unless the customer notifies the bank of the customer's objection within one year after the notification was received by the customer. Fla.Stat. § 670.505. Thus, "the obligation to refund may not be asserted by the customer if the customer has not objected to the debiting of the account within one year after the customer received notification of the debit." Official Comment to Fla.Stat. § 670.505. Courts and treatises alike have characterized this section of the code as a statute of repose. See, e.g., Official Comment to Fla.Stat. § 670.505; Fl....

...Instead, Plaintiff argues that because the Bancredit Cayman Checking Account statements only show the $13 million debit from that account, and not the subsequent credit of the CD proceeds to the Bancredito-DR MMA, that is not enough to amount to actual notice of the allegedly unauthorized transaction under Florida Statute § 670.505....

...prior to the order of recognition in its Chapter *912 15 case. Therefore, as a matter of law, its claim that the December 16, 2002 transfer violated Florida Statute § 670.203 is barred by the one year statute of repose set forth in Florida Statute § 670.505 and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Count XI of the Amended Complaint....

...der—then “the customer is precluded from asserting that the bank is not entitled to retain the payment unless the customer notifies the bank of the customer's objection to the payment within one year after the notification was received by the customer.” Id. § 670.505 (emphasis added). The comment further explains the one-year rule....

...§ 670.501. Section 670.204 requires a bank to refund a payment order if it was not verified (unless the bank followed commercially reasonable security procedures in good faith), and this obligation may not be varied by agreement. Id. § 670.204(1). And Section 670.505 provides that a customer may not assert a claim for a re- fund for a fraudulent transfer after one year after the customer re- ceived notice of the transfer. Id. § 670.505. We now turn to the dispute here: is the one-year period in Section 670.505 modifiable by the parties? BB&T argues that it is modifiable and that the parties shortened it to 30 days....

...So because the Appellants didn’t notify BB&T of the fraudulent wire transfer within 30 days of the last statement in November 2017, BB&T as- serts, the Appellants’ claim for statutory repayment is time-barred. For their part, the Appellants respond that the period in Sec- tion 670.505 cannot be varied by agreement....

...2021). Section 204 concerns only unauthorized or unverified wire transfers and a bank’s duty to refund. FLA. STAT. § 670.204. Section 505, on the other hand, provides a statute of re- pose for objecting to all debits to a customer’s account. Id. § 670.505 cmt....

...204 and 505 conflict, Section 204 controls. McGregor, 332 So. 3d at 491. And here, that conflict counsels against allowing the parties to modify the time to demand a refund. Third, the commentary to Section 505 describes it as like a “statute of repose.” FLA. STAT. § 670.505 cmt....

...20 Opinion of the Court 21-11763 jurisdictional statute of nonclaim”); see also John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 133–34 (2008). Given that (1) Section 505 is like a statute of repose, see FLA. STAT. § 670.505 cmt., and therefore jurisdictional and that (2) we do not allow parties to create subject matter jurisdiction by agreement, it would make lit- tle sense to allow parties to modify Section 505 by agreement....

...doesn’t have any language prohibiting variation by agreement. BB&T’s argument goes like this: Section 501 provides that every provision in Chapter 670 can be varied unless “[e]xcept as other- wise provided.” Id. § 670.501(1). Section 505 has no such limita- tion. Id. § 670.505....

...22 Opinion of the Court 21-11763 claim for a refund could be modified to be unreasonably short— even shorter than the interest period—because there is, after all, no use of the word “reasonable” in Sections 670.501 and 670.505. Id. §§ 670.501; 670.505....