Florida Statute 673.3051 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Chapter 673
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 673.3051

673.3051 Defenses and claims in recoupment.—

(1) Except as stated in subsection (2), the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to:

(a) A defense of the obligor based on:

1. Infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract;

2. Duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor;

3. Fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms; or

4. Discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings;

(b) A defense of the obligor stated in another section of this chapter or a defense of the obligor that would be available if the person entitled to enforce the instrument were enforcing a right to payment under a simple contract; and

(c) A claim in recoupment of the obligor against the original payee of the instrument if the claim arose from the transaction that gave rise to the instrument; but the claim of the obligor may be asserted against a transferee of the instrument only to reduce the amount owing on the instrument at the time the action is brought.

(2) The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in paragraph (1)(a), but is not subject to defenses of the obligor stated in paragraph (1)(b) or claims in recoupment stated in paragraph (1)(c) against a person other than the holder.

(3) Except as stated in subsection (4), in an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument (s. 673.3061) of another person, but the other person’s claim to the instrument may be asserted by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.

(4) In an action to enforce the obligation of an accommodation party to pay an instrument, the accommodation party may assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument any defense or claim in recoupment under subsection (1) that the accommodated party could assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument, except the defenses of discharge in insolvency proceedings, infancy, and lack of legal capacity.

History.—s. 2, ch. 92-82.

F.S. 673.3051 on Google Scholar

F.S. 673.3051 on CourtListener

Amendments to 673.3051

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 673.3051

Total Results: 14

Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. v. Talcott

830 So. 2d 160, 48 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 800

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 9, 2002 | Docket: 1516853

Cited 9 times | Published

"recoupment" Talcott could raise against Guarino. § 673.3051(1) & (2), Fla. Stat. (2001). Because Talcott

Citibank, N.A. v. Dalessio

756 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 2010 WL 5137601

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 2010 | Docket: 2344031

Cited 4 times | Published

or claim in *1367 recoupment described in section 673.3051(1). Fla. Stat. § 673.3021(1). As previously

American First Federal, Inc. v. Lake Forest Park, Inc.

198 F.3d 1259, 1999 WL 1247766

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 23, 1999 | Docket: 395627

Cited 2 times | Published

U.C.C. § 3-305 (1972); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 673.3051(2) (West 1993). 3 . AFF, having

HSBC Bank USA v. Buset

241 So. 3d 882

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 7, 2018 | Docket: 6297807

Cited 1 times | Published

the person entitled to enforce the instrument.” § 673.3051(3). Even then, ownership is not relevant to

GREGORY MIRMELLI v. HARVEY SILVERMAN, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 2022 | Docket: 64916763

Published

instrument against a holder in due course.”); § 673.3051(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The right of a holder

Aquasol Condo Assoc. v. HSBC Bank USA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 2018 | Docket: 8110464

Published

person entitled to enforce the instrument.” § 673.3051(3). Even then, ownership is not

Aquasol Condo Assoc. v. HSBC Bank USA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 15, 2018 | Docket: 7664423

Published

person entitled to enforce the instrument.” § 673.3051(3). Even then, ownership is not

In re Elowitz

550 B.R. 603, 75 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1237, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 205, 89 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 823, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 2206

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | Filed: May 17, 2016 | Docket: 65788662

Published

instrument than a mere holder. See Fla. Stat. § 673.3051(2): see also, Davis v. Starling, 799 So.2d 373

Carrillo Development, LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC

193 So. 3d 4, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 19222, 2015 WL 9315732

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 2015 | Docket: 60255685

Published

section 673.3021(1), Florida Statutes (2010). See § 673.3051, Fla. Stat. (2010); Bank of Miami v. Fla. City

Cabrillo Development, LLC v. Bayview Loan Services, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 2015 | Docket: 3023612

Published

section 673.3021(1), Florida Statutes (2010). See § 673.3051, Fla. Stat. (2010); Bank of Miami v. Fla. City

Broide v. Alvarez

90 So. 3d 857, 2012 WL 1934415, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8736

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2012 | Docket: 60309663

Published

instrument is issued without consideration.”); § 673.3051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“[T]he right to enforce

American First Fed. v. Lake Forest

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 23, 1999 | Docket: 395617

Published

parties. See U.C.C. § 3-305 (1972); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 673.3051(2) (West 1993).

Hobley v. Metz

630 So. 2d 625, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3, 1994 WL 1269

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 1994 | Docket: 64745846

Published

a defense or claim in recoupment described in § 673.3051(1). . Section 673.3081(2), Florida Statutes

Heritage Real Estate & Development Co. v. Gaich

620 So. 2d 1118, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7072, 1993 WL 242583

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1993 | Docket: 64697474

Published

Improvement Corp., 330 So.2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); § 673.3051(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1992 Supp.). In Atrio, the