Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ation to examine bank 5 statements and notify the bank” of any claimed errors or unauthorized activity. Lowenstein v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 720 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Fla. Stat. § 674.406; see also Cheese & Grill, 970 So....

...Further, it argues that the checks did not put it on notice that checks written to NGI Marine were being deposited into an account maintained by Nowell Group, Inc. Therefore, Redland argues that it did not have a duty to report the unauthorized checks. See Fla. Stat. 674.406(3)....

...per payment of the depositor’s checks, and that under those provisions, if the bank acted negligently, the depositor’s own negligence is irrelevant and cannot reduce the amount of the depositor’s damages. We agree with Federal. Florida statute § 674.406, which provides a defense to a bank if a customer fails to discover and report unauthorized signatures within 14 days of receipt of the first bank statement containing such an instrument, further provides that this defense “does not apply if the customer establishes lack of ordinary care on the part of the bank in paying the item(s).” Fla.Stat. *1551 § 674.406(3)....

...These ends would not be furthered by the introduction of the sort of fact inquiries necessitated by comparative negligence. Once again, there is no reason to believe that the Florida courts would disagree with this well established line of authority. As the commentary to Fla.Stat. § 674.406 states: Subsection (3)....

...On March, 31, 1980, the court entered a final default judgment against Wooldridge and dismissed the complaint against Flagship for all checks written prior to one year from the notice given Flagship of the forged signatures. The dismissal was based on the notice requirement of section 674.406(4), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...failure to examine its monthly statements and to verify the signatures on its checks was the proximate cause of its loss. On November 12, 1980, the court entered final summary judgment for Flagship. Tropic Air appeals from that judgment. We REVERSE. Section 674.406(1), Florida Statutes (1979), imposes the following duties upon a bank customer: When a bank sends to its customer a statement of account accompanied by items paid in good faith in support of the debit entries or holds the statement an...

...icity of signatures during the twenty-six months the checks were being cashed. This evidence is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Tropic Air totally failed to exercise reasonable care by promptly examining its cancelled checks as required by section 674.406(1)....

...Civ. App. 1979), Zenith Syndicate, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, 23 U.C.C.Rep. 1267 (Civ.Ct.N.Y. 1978), and Kiernan v. Union Bank, 18 U.C.C.Rep. 1026, 55 Cal. App.3d 111, 127 Cal. Rptr. 441 (1976), which are factually identical to the present case. Section 674.406(2) defines the effect of the failure of the customer to comply with subsection (1): If the bank establishes that the customer failed with respect to an item to comply with the duties imposed on the customer by subsection (1) the customer is precluded from asserting against the bank....

...There were no allegations that anyone other than Wooldridge was responsible for the forged checks. *589 The first item was written June 6, 1976; thus, it would appear that Tropic Air because of its failure to examine is precluded from asserting any liability against Flagship. However, under subsection 674.406(3), [1] Tropic Air would not be precluded from asserting liability against Flagship if it could establish that the bank failed to exercise ordinary care in paying the items....

...Whether Flagship failed to exercise ordinary care in paying the items is a question of fact. Coleman v. Brotherhood State Bank ; Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v. Kidwell Constr. Co . As the cause involved the resolution of an issue of fact, the entry of summary judgment was improper unless the claims were absolutely barred by section 674.406(4). Section 674.406(4) provides that: Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank a customer who does not within one year from the time the statement and items are made available to the customer (subsection (1)) discover and...

...441 (1976); Neo-Tech Systems, Inc. v. Provident Bank, 43 Ohio Misc. 31, 335 N.E.2d 395 (1974). As was noted above, the checks were forged and cashed from June 11, 1976 to November 13, 1978. Tropic Air notified Flagship of the forgeries on January 23, 1979. Thus, under section 674.406(4), Tropic Air is not precluded from asserting unauthorized signatures on checks for which the check and statement were furnished after January 23, 1978....

...nk's actions in cashing the first item. Based on George Whalley, the court below held that only Flagship's negligence in *590 cashing the first forged item was relevant and as the claim for that check was barred because of the notice requirements of section 674.406(4), Flagship was entitled to summary judgment for all subsequent checks....

...1980) and Exchange Bank and Trust Co. v. Kidwell Constr. Co., 463 S.W.2d 465 (Civ.App.Tex. 1971). Here, Tropic Air should have been permitted to establish the lack of ordinary care, if any, on the part of Flagship in paying subsequent checks not barred by the notice requirement of section 674.406(4) even though the claim as to the initial forged check was barred. We therefore REVERSE the summary judgment and REMAND for trial on the issue of the bank's negligence, if any. COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 674.406(3) provides as follows: The preclusion under subsection (2) does not apply if the customer establishes lack of ordinary care on the part of the bank in paying the item(s).

...Shannon's testimony regarding her lack of knowledge. Cole Taylor argues that, nevertheless, *552 the trial court should have found from circumstantial evidence that Mrs. Shannon knowingly accepted the benefits of the credit line. For example, Cole Taylor contends that under section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1997), Mrs....

...Patricia Shannon, Mrs. Shannon knew, or at least had constructive knowledge, that the convenience checks had been drafted and deposited into the Shannons' Cole Taylor checking account. Without addressing the validity of appellant's interpretation of section 674.406 or its constructive knowledge theory, even if Cole Taylor's argument is correct, it was for the trial court, as the finder of fact, to weigh and to resolve conflicts in the evidence....

...an ownership interest in the funds represented by the check which was subject to conversion by the collecting bank under section 673.419. The argument that Central Plaza Bank will lose the benefit of the defenses guaranteed to the County Bank under section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1983), has no merit because these defenses are predicated upon the drawee bank furnishing its customer with a statement of account accompanied by items paid in good faith in support of the debit entries....

...Rehearing Denied June 22, 1993. Garry C. Faske, North Miami, for appellant. Lapidus & Frankel and Robert Frankel, Miami, for appellee. Before NESBITT, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ. LEVY, Judge. A bank customer appeals the dismissal of his complaint against a bank as being barred by Section 674.406(4), Florida Statutes (1991). Based upon our finding that the one-year time limitation in Section 674.406(4) is a notice requirement, and not a statute of limitations, we reverse....

...Steven Gerber had a joint checking account with his mother at City National Bank of Florida. In March of 1992, Gerber filed suit against the bank, seeking to recover for checks allegedly forged on the account between January of 1990 and May of 1990. The bank filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the suit was barred by Section 674.406(4). Section 674.406(4), which is based upon U.C.C....

...*329 Specifically, the bank argued that Gerber was barred from recovering because he had not filed suit within one year of the bank making available to Gerber the bank statements which reflected the forged checks. [1] The trial court agreed with the bank, and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Gerber argues that Section 674.406(4) is not a statute of limitations, which requires a customer to actually file suit against a bank within the one-year period, but is merely a notice requirement, which must be satisfied in order for a customer to preserve the right to bring suit against the bank at a later time....

...When called upon to interpret a statute, we must give effect to the plain and unambiguous meaning of the words used. Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1992); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984); Fabre v. Marin, 597 So.2d 883, 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Section 674.406(4) merely requires a customer to "discover and report" an unauthorized signature, or else be "precluded from asserting" liability against the bank. Section 674.406(4) does not require that suit be filed, nor does it state that an action "shall be commenced." Compare § 674.406(4) with § 95.11, Fla. Stat. (1991) (language used in limitation of actions statute differs significantly from that used in Section 674.406(4)). Section 674.406 only imposes on bank customers, who are in a better position to detect forgeries than bank personnel, a duty to notify a bank of an unauthorized signature in order to facilitate discovery and prevention of further wrongdoing. Accordingly, we read Section 674.406(4) as imposing a notice requirement, which acts as a condition precedent to the right to sue, and not a statute of limitations....

...ut it is a limitation on the period in which notice of a claim against the bank must be given."). We recognize that when a series of checks, rather than a single check, are alleged to have been improperly honored by a bank, the proper application of Section 674.406(4) may serve to preclude a customer's recovery on some checks, while allowing *330 recovery on others, depending upon when bank statements are issued and when notice is given....

...We therefore reverse and remand, giving Gerber leave to file an amended complaint. [2] Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] The bank relied on Southern Contract Carpet, Inc. v. County National Bank of South Florida, 528 So.2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), in arguing that Section 674.406(4) contains a statute of limitations....

...signature under the statute. There was no mention or discussion of any notice that may or may not have been given by the customer to the bank in that case. Despite the existence of dicta which might be construed to the contrary, the issue of whether Section 674.406(4) contains a statute of limitations or just a notice requirement was not material to the ratio decidendi of Southern Contract Carpet. Having not been previously decided by this Court, the issue is open for our consideration. [2] Although Section 674.406(2)(b) was briefly mentioned by counsel at oral argument, it was not raised as an issue in this appeal....

...relevant provisions of 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). Under § 674.406, the customer is obligated to review account statements and provide the bank with notice of objectionable activity. See Fla. Stat. § 674.406 (3) (requiring customer to “exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or the items to determine whether- any payment was not authorized’;’ and “promptly notify, the bank of the-relevant facts”); see also Cheese & Grill Rest., Inc....

...thorized signature on or any alteration on the item or who does not, within 1 year after that time, discover and report any unauthorized endorsement is precluded from asserting against the bank the unauthorized signature or alteration. 17 Fla. Stat. § 674.406 (6) (emphasis supplied); see also Redland Co....

...e defense to claims based on the unauthorized itéms.”) 18 ; Lowenstein v. Barnett Bank of *1347 S. Florida, N.A., 789 So.2d 1012, 1013-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) opinion clarified, 720 So.2d 596 (Fla. 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....

...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....

...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....

...�)). As previously noted, see supra Section III.A.1, b., Articles 4 and 4A allocate loss in a particular manner. For items, Article 4 provides that the payor bank is liable regardless of care for paying an item not “properly payable.” Fla. Stat. § 674.406 (1)....

...A customer forfeits their right to recover, however, “[w]ithout regard to care or lack of care,” where the customer fails to object to the unauthorized or altered item within 180 days after the statement or items are made available to the customer. Fla. Stat. § 674.406 (6)....

...The remaining checks were paid between May 21, 1981 and August 13, 1981, and are not involved in this appeal. The trial court entered a partial summary judgment for the first five checks, totalling $19,697.30, plus interest of $4,809.84. *339 To support the trial court's judgment, appellee relies on section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1981) [1] ....

...flected the alteration of the first four checks in question. If this can be established, and if the customer is not able then to establish the lack of ordinary care on the part of the bank in paying the *340 item(s) as provided under subsection 3 of § 674.406, then the customer is precluded from asserting the alteration against the bank....

...reasonable length of time, raise substantial questions of material fact ordinarily making summary judgment inappropriate. Space Distributors, Inc. v. Flagship Bank of Melbourne, 402 So.2d 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Contrary to the appellee's position, section 674.406 does not create an absolute liability on the part of the bank for payments made on checks during the fourteen day period after the first statement is available to the customer....

...by not reporting the discrepancy within the fourteen day period. In Ashley-Hall Interiors, Ltd., Inc. v. Bank of New Orleans, 389 So.2d 850 (La. App. 4th Cir.1980) the Louisiana appellate court, applying a statute almost identical to Florida Statute § 674.406, concluded that where a depositor failed to exercise reasonable care in examining his statements the bank would not be liable for forged or altered checks even though paid within fourteen days from the date of receipt of the first bank statement containing evidence of alterations....

...the forgeries should have been decided by the trier of fact. See Travelers Insurance Company v. Jefferson National Bank at Kindall, 404 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). REVERSED and REMANDED. COBB, J., and LEE, R.E., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 674.406, in relevant part, says: Customer's duty to discover and report unauthorized signature or alteration....

...On November 10, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Martin holding that: FLORIDA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION failed to comply with its deposit agreement with Plaintiff, MICHAEL D. MARTIN; and that pursuant to the preclusionary rules set forth in Section 674.406 of the Florida Statutes that as a matter of law, the depositor is entitled to have his account reimbursed where the savings and loan association failed to comply with this deposit agreement and failed to return the items to examine; a...

...of fact as to whether Martin was negligent and, if so, whether his negligence substantially contributed to the forgeries by Tozzer. We agree, however, with the trial judge that Florida Federal could not avail itself of the defense it asserted under section 674.406(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...Martin. Further, it made no showing that it had held the items pursuant to any request by Martin or otherwise made the items available to him in a reasonable manner prior to his discovery of the forgeries. Florida Federal therefore cannot rely upon section 674.406 in defense of Martin's claim....

...The WAMU-Restaurant account disclosures and regulations obligated the Restaurant to monitor its own statements, to report any unauthorized payments within thirty days, and to assert any claim based on such payments within six months. This, the Restaurant admittedly did not do. Subsection 674.406(1) of the Florida Statutes provides that a statement of account provided by a bank is sufficient if each item is described by item number, amount, and date of payment....

...Affirmed. NOTES [1] The forgery affidavit, signed under oath by Francisco Arauz for the Restaurant on September 26, 2002, does not allege the invalidity or forgery of the maker's signature — only an unauthorized endorsement on the back of the checks. [2] § 674.406(2), Fla....

...The checks had been forged by Ossip's bookkeeper and made payable to the bookkeeper's creditors or to herself. Barnett's answer raised several affirmative defenses, inter alia, that Ossip failed to detect and report the forgeries to Barnett pursuant to Section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1981), and that Ossip's negligence substantially contributed to the making of the forged checks....

...to preclude Ossip from asserting liability against the bank, and (2) a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Barnett failed to exercise ordinary care in paying the items, thereby allowing for assertion of liability by Ossip pursuant to Section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1981). Resolution of this dispute turns on the provisions of subsections (1) through (3) of Section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1981), which state: (1) When a bank sends to its customer a statement of account accompanied by items paid in good faith in support of the debit entries or holds the statement and items pursuant to a request or inst...

...mally pay." The checks were thus not scrutinized for unauthorized signatures as required by statute, nor was reasonable notice given to Barnett of any wrongdoing after the first statement and checks were made available to Ossip within the meaning of Section 674.406(2)(b). Consequently, the evidence supports the conclusion, as a matter of law, that Ossip failed to exercise the degree of care required by statute, Space Distributors, Inc. v. Flagship Bank of Melbourne, N.A., 402 So.2d at 588, and under Section 674.406(2)(b), is therefore precluded from recovering against Barnett unless it can establish lack of ordinary care by Barnett in paying the forgeries. Under Section 674.406(3), the burden of proving Barnett's lack of ordinary care falls squarely on Ossip-Harris....

...On August 12, 1985, more than a year after Southern Contract had received a bank statement showing this withdrawal, it brought the instant suit against the bank for recovery of the $35,000. The lower court entered judgment for the defendant on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations contained in section 674.406(4), Florida Statutes (1985) (section 4-406(4) of the Uniform Commercial Code): (4) Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank a customer who does not within 1 year from the time the statement and items a...

...ent with the bank establishing the account. See § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). We do not agree with this position and accordingly affirm the judgment below. Our holding that the single-signature-when-two-are-required is an "unauthorized" one for 674.406(4) purposes is based largely on our interpretation of the most obviously pertinent source, the specific definition of the term in the UCC itself....

...Hanover Trust Co., 138 Misc.2d 289, 293, 524 N.Y.S.2d 336, 339 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1988). Even more clearly, the fact that an unauthorized signature includes a forgery is directly contrary to the appellant's position that, for practical purposes, only forgeries qualify under 674.406(4)....

...Clark & Squillante, The Law of Bank Deposits, Collections and Credit Cards, 1975 Cum.Supp., pp. 3-4. King-of-All Mfg., 69 Mich. App. at 493, 245 N.W.2d at 105. Since the action was commenced beyond the period provided by the thus applicable terms of section 674.406(4), the judgment below is Affirmed. NOTES [1] The appellant also contends that the signature of Dorothy Herman was forged but concedes its inability to succeed in this contention under any possible view, including its own, of section 674.406(4).

...s a matter of law, which also entitled Putnal to summary judgment. In response to this allegation, the bank argued that the parties may, by agreement, alter the default statutory provisions contained in chapter 674. § 674.103(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 674.406(6), Florida Statutes (2002), states that a customer is precluded from asserting a claim against a bank if he fails to report an unauthorized signature or alteration within one year of the statement being sent to the customer, "without...

...at his request to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (c) Plaintiff, GREGORY BURDINE-COAKLEY, was aware that he could request copies of statements and cancelled items from CAPITAL BANK, but did not do so. (d) Plaintiff is precluded from this action by Florida Statutes § 674.406 due to his failure to review the statements and cancelled items and his failure to notify CAPITAL BANK of any items that were paid on an unauthorized signature....

...This Court retains jurisdiction of the parties and of this cause to tax costs incurred by the Defendant. We find no error in the final judgment. The record reflects that Burdine-Coakley failed to establish a lack of ordinary care on the part of Capital Bank. See section 674.406(3), Fla....

...one which appeared on the bank's signature cards. The only basis [1] for the denial of the bank's liability for its plainly unauthorized payments from Mr. Coles's account, see § 674.401, Fla. Stat. (1983), was the plaintiff's failure to comply with section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1983). Under section 674.406(3), however: (3) The preclusion under subsection (2) does not apply if the customer establishes lack of ordinary care on the part of the bank in paying the item(s)....

...item especially in a situation where the bank has paid over a forged or unauthorized signature. (footnote omitted) On the other hand, since whether the bank's payment of the checks executed under the power of attorney was or was not negligent under section 674.406(3) was properly for the fact finder, [3] I agree with affirmance as to those items. NOTES [1] The bank does not invoke § 674.406(4), Fla....

...Plaintiff further argues that even if the Agreements govern, the 30-day notification condition precedent to filing suit does not apply to the transfers at issue. See id at 6. In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that the ,30rday notification provision constitutes an impermissible modification and expansion of section 674.406 of the Florida Statutes (“§ 674.406”), and that regardless, Chase’s material breach of the Agreements excused Plaintiff from complying with the provision....

...to exercise ordinary care. 2 For all of the reasons above, the *1304 Agreements’ 30-day notification provision governs the. Sacks Transfers. Moreover, the Agreements’ notification provision does not impermissibly expand or modify Fla. Stat. Ann. § 674.406 . Plaintiff seeks to avoid the Agreements’ clear terms by arguing that application of the 30-day notification provision to the Sacks Transfers impermissibly modifies and expands Fla. Stat: Ann. § 674.406....

...to give notice of encoding errors” impermissi-bly expanded the scope of § 4-406 because § 4-406 deals only “with a customer’s duty to discover and timely report unauthorized signatures or alteration^].” 419 F.3d at 818-19. Plaintiff posits that Fla. Stat. Ann. § 674.406 mirrors UCC § 4-406, and urges the Court to consider decisions in other jurisdictions [such as Douglas] which have adopted the model code. ECF No. [125] at 7. In Florida, Title XXXIX, Chapter 674, Article 4, of the Florida Statutes governs bank deposits and collections. Like UCC § 4-406, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 674.406 covers a “Customer’s duty to discover and report unauthorized signature or alteration.” “Absent extraordinary circumstances Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code and bank-customer agreements place the burden of reviewing statements ......

...Despite having the burden to review and examine its Account Statements under Florida law, Plaintiff’s position is that it is excused from notifying Chase of the errors reflected in those Statements because the Agreements’ 30-day notification provision impermissibly expands the scope of Fla. Stat. Ann.. § 674.406 to include electronic transfers....

...But even ignoring this authority and indulging Plaintiffs arguments under Douglas, the result is the same. As urged by Plaintiff, Douglas stands for the proposition that a contract cannot expand the scope of UCC § 4-406. Under Florida’s analogous provision at Fla. Stat. Ann. § 674.406 : (1) A bank that sends or makes available to a customer a statement of account showing payment of items for the account shall either return or make available to the customer the items paid or provide information in the statement of account sufficient to allow the customer reasonably to identify the items paid....

...or on behalf of the customer was not authorized. If, based on the statement or items provided, the customer should reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment, the customer must promptly notify the bank of the relevant facts. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 674.406 . Per the terms of the statute, § 674.406 applies to an account statement-showing the payment of “items.” As used in § 674.406, “‘item’ means an instrument or a promise dr order to pay money handled by a bank for collection or payment....

...The term does not include a payment order governed by chapter 670 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 674 .104®. The chapter . 670 exemption to “items” includes all funds transfers defined in § 670.104, 3 seemingly placing the Sacks Transfers beyond the scope of § 674.406 and Douglas....

...ectronic Fund Transfer. Act [“EFTA”] of 1978.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 670.108 . Therefore, if the Sacks Transfers are governed by the EFTA, they are not covered by Chapter 670 and may constitute “items” within the meaning of §§ 674.104® and 674.406....

...Texas Commerce Medical Bank, N.A., 703 F.2d 936, 939-42 (5th Cir.1983) (“The EFTA only protects ‘consumers,’ meaning natural persons, not business entities”). As - such, the Sacks Transfers made from Plaintiffs business accounts do not constitute “items” within the meaning of § 674,104(i), and are not covered-by § 674.406. Because the Sacks Transfers are exempt from.§ 674.406, the analysis in Douglas pertaining to- UCC § 4-406 does not apply....

...Accordingly, the Douglas Court’s reasoning pertaining to encoding errors and UCC § 4 does not apply to the Sacks Transfers. The Agreements’ notification provision applies to the Sacks Transfers and' does not impermissibly expand Fla. Stat. Ann. § 674.406 ....

...The Agreements’ notification provision applies even if Plaintiff never agreed . to on-line services Because the notification provision in the Agreements applies to the Sacks Transfers and does not impermissibly expand the scope of Fla. Stat. Ann. § ■ 674.406, Plaintiff is bound by the Agreements that the Gilberts signed....

...urther forgeries. The comment explicitly states that "no attempt is made to specify what is negligence" and that the determination should turn "on the facts of the particular case." The bank's second and third affirmative defenses were predicated on section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...The check imprinter did not contain a facsimile signature, and the fact that checks may have been occasionally written out of sequence had nothing to do with the forgery. I further believe that the facts do not support the Bank's affirmative defense under section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...e First National Bank of Cape Canaveral for accepting for payment two forged checks drawn on Keshishian's account. We reverse because we think the record shows there were material questions of fact as to the Bank's defenses under sections 673.406 an 674.406 of the Florida U.C.C....

...McIntosh noted that the forged signatures on the two checks at issue were "so good" she was certain Keshishian had signed them when she was first called upon to investigate this matter. *315 The rule in Price v. Neal, 3 Burr. 1354, [3] has been complicated somewhat by sections 673.406 and 674.406, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...Jefferson National Bank at Kendall, 404 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Space Distributors, Inc. v. Flagship Bank of Melbourne, 402 So.2d 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Florida Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Martin, 400 So.2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Appellee argues that both sections 673.406 and 674.406 require an affirmative showing by the Bank that it acted in good faith and in accordance with reasonable commercial standards. With regard to section 673.406 this may be true if the matter proceeds to trial, but with regard to section 674.406 it appears the customer must establish the bank acted without ordinary care to defeat the defense....

...... to the making of an unauthorized signature is precluded from asserting ... lack of authority against ... a drawee ... who pays the instrument in good faith and in accordance with the reasonable commercial standards of the drawee's ... business. Section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1977), provides in part: (1) When a bank sends to its customer a statement of account accompanied by items paid in good faith in support of the debit entries ......

...Barnett maintained that although statements had been regularly sent to the customer, [1] as to all but the last six checks, the customer failed to discover and report the forgeries within one year. Thus, the bank argued, the customer was precluded from recovery under section 674.406(4) Florida Statutes (1991), moved after January 1, 1993, to section 674.406(6) Florida Statutes (1995)....

...After a hearing on the matter, final judgment was entered against Barnett for $21,032.88, based on Barnett's stipulation to liability on the last six alleged forged checks, the balance of the customer's claim was rejected and final judgment was issued in Barnett's favor. Section 674.406(6) provides as did its predecessor: Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank, a customer who does not within 1 year after the statement or items are made available to the customer (subsection (1)) disc...

...signature or alteration. If there is a preclusion under this subsection, the payor bank may not recover for breach of warranty under s. 674.2081 with respect to the unauthorized signature or alteration to which the preclusion applies. 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....

...2d DCA 1987) (customer’s negligence in hiring forger); Flagship Bank v. Complete Interiors, Inc., 450 So.2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (same); Ossip-Harris Ins., Inc. v. Barnett Bank, N.A., 428 So.2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (customer’s negligent failure to promptly reconcile bank statements as required by section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1981)); First Nat’l Bank v....

...Patterson Produce answered and filed a three-count counterclaim, count I of which was directed to the bank’s alleged mishandling of certain deposits to the company’s accounts. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the bank on the authority of section 674.406, Florida Statutes (1983), as to count I of the counterclaim....

...eposit slips showing the deducted amounts. The statements did not include the deposited checks as they had been returned to the company’s customers, the drawers of the checks. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the bank argued that section 674.406(4) requires the bank customer to discover and report to the bank an unauthorized signature or any alteration on the face or back of an item within one year of the time that the bank statements and items are made available to the customer....

...The trial court apparently adopted this argument in granting the summary judgment, notwithstanding the existence of an unresolved question of fact as to when the bank first received notice of the unauthorized withdrawals. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly applied the one-year limitation of section 674.406(4) to the instant cause. Having examined the language of the statute and the case law interpreting it, we conclude the legislature intended the one-year limitation of section 674.406(4) to deal exclusively with the subject of forgeries or unauthorized signatures upon checks or other instruments drawn against the customer’s account as well as the alteration of such checks or instruments....

...5th DCA 1981); Florida Federal Savings & Loan v. Martin, 400 So.2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Because the checks complained of herein were not drawn on the company’s accounts and thus not returned with its bank statements, the bank is not entitled to rely on the one-year limitation of section 674.406(4) as a defense to the company’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for proceedings consistent herewith. RYDER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur. . 674.406 Customer’s duty to discover and report unauthorized signature or alteration.— (1) When a bank sends to its customer a statement of account accompanied by items paid in good faith in support of the debit entries or holds the statement and...

...Barnett maintained that although statements had been regularly sent to the customer, 1 as to all but the last six checks, the customer failed to discover and report the forgeries within one year. Thus, the bank argued, the customer was precluded from recovery under section 674.406(4) Florida Statutes (1995)....

...After a hearing on the matter, final judgment was entered against Barnett for $21,032.88, based on Barnett’s stipulation to liability on the last six alleged forged checks, the balance of the customer’s claim was rejected and final judgment was issued in Barnett’s favor. Section 674.406 provides in part: (3) If a bank sends or makes available a statement of account or items pursuant to subsection (1), the customer must exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or the items to determine whether any pay...

...otice from the customer of the unauthorized signature or alteration and after the customer had been afforded a reasonable period of time, not exceeding 30 days, in which to examine the item or statement of account and notify the bank. As mandated by section 674.406, the customer had an obligation to examine bank *1014 statements and notify the bank within one year of any claimed errors....

...ve the same effect here were this a situation in which the Bank had been prejudiced. Since it was not prejudiced, no stay of these proceedings is necessary or appropriate. UCC Article 4 issues Colonial Bank relies upon UCC § 4-406, Florida Statutes § 674.406, for the proposition that if a bank makes account statements available to its customer, the customer has a duty to discover and report any forgeries or unauthorized items to the bank in a timely manner....

...The Bank here asserts that because the Debtor has allegedly not identified specific items which the Bank did not pay in good faith, the Debtor cannot recover. The Bank also asserts that the Debtor failed to complain within the short 180-day period provided for in the applicable version of F.S. § 674.406(6)....

...5th DCA 1984), citing, Space Distributors, Inc. v. Flagship Bank of Melbourne, 402 So.2d 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The question of when a plaintiff should have discovered a forgery is a question of fact. The statute of limitations defense under F.S. § 674.406(6) on which Colonial Bank relies in seeking summary judgment applies only where the owner actually received a statement of the contested items....

...In such an action, the depositor could rely upon the presumption of genuineness, and it would be incumbent upon the bank to produce first-hand probative proof as to any claimed forgery. 622 West 113th Street Corp., 276 N.Y.S.2d at 88-89 (citations omitted). Sun Bank next argues that Florida Statutes section 674.406 permits a customer to make a claim upon a drawee bank for forged or unauthorized signatures within three years after receiving its statement containing the forged or unauthorized signatures. It is true that sub judice, the drawer and the drawee bank (C & S Bank) made a claim within the three year time period. However, Sun Bank's argument lacks merit because section 674.406 allows a claim to be made; it does not authorize the collecting bank to take action by removing funds from a customer's account....

...Section 673.1141 provides that, where an instrument contains contradictory provisions, the words prevail over the numerals. However, nothing contained in that statute excuses application of the condition precedent to suit provisions governing bank-customer relations contained in section 674.406, Florida Statutes....