DYNAMITE ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
EAGLE NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dynamite Enterprises sued Eagle National Bank for refusing to honor a stop-payment order on a check written against insufficient funds. The Florida appellate court reversed summary judgment for the bank, holding that customers retain the right to stop payment on overdraft checks because banks have discretion to honor them.
A bank customer has the right to stop payment on any check payable from the customer's account, including overdraft checks, because banks retain discretion under Florida law to honor overdraft checks and charge the customer's account accordingly.
[1] A bank customer has the right to stop payment on any item payable from the customer's account, even if the account is overdrawn at the time the stop-payment order is issu…
[2] A check written on an account with insufficient funds is still a payable item from the customer's account, as a bank may, in its discretion, honor the overdrawn check and…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 674.403(1), Florida Statutes (1985), clearly gives a bank customer the right to stop payment on "any item payable" from the customer's account, subject to certain written formalities not relevant here.”
Establishes the statutory foundation for the customer's right to stop payment regardless of account balance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDynamite Enterprises wrote a check on its account with Eagle National Bank when the account had insufficient funds. The plaintiff issued a stop-paymen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insufficient Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Dynamite Enterprises, Inc. from an adverse final summary judgment in a suit brought against the defendant Eagle National Bank of Miami. The basis of the suit was the alleged refusal of the defendant bank to honor the plaintiffs stop-payment order on a check written by the plaintiff on its checking account with the defendant bank. We reverse based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, it is undisputed on this record that at the time the plaintiff wrote the check in question, and that at the time the stop-payment order was received by the defendant bank, the plaintiff had insufficient funds in his checking account to pay for the check. The stop-payment order was refused by the defendant bank on the theory that it had no legal obligation to honor such a stop-payment order because there were insufficient funds in the plaintiffs account to pay the check; the bank so notified its customer, the plaintiff, of this refusal to honor the stop-payment order. Later, the defendant bank paid on the check after sufficient funds were deposited to cover same and, in effect, treated the prior stop-payment order as a nullity.
Second, Section 674.403(1), Florida Statutes (1985), clearly gives a bank customer the right to stop payment on “any item payable” from the customer’s account, subject to certain written formalities not relevant here. Plainly, a check written on an account with insufficient funds is still a payable item from the customer’s account because the bank, in its discretion, may honor the overdrawn check and thereafter charge the customer’s account under Section 674.401(1), Florida Statutes (1985). It follows, then, that a bank customer has a right to interfere with this bank discretion and to stop payment on an overdrawn check under Section 674.-403(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Chute v. Bank One of Akron, N.A., 10 Ohio App.3d 122, 460 N.E. 2d 720 (1983).
Third, inasmuch as the defendant bank obtained summary judgment below solely on the erroneous theory that it had no obligation to honor the plaintiff’s stop-payment order because the check in question was an overdraft at the time, the subject summary judgment under review must be, and is hereby, reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.