EMAD SELIM
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ETC.
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.
A party seeking to challenge a signature's validity must present some evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of valid signature under § 673.3081(1), and absent such evidence, the other party is entitled to summary judgment.
[1] Under Florida Statute § 673.3081(1), a signature on a negotiable instrument is presumed valid and authentic, and the burden shifts to the party challenging the signature…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the term 'presumed' in section 673.3081(1) means that until some evidence is introduced which would support a finding that the signature is forged or unauthorized, the plaintiff was not required to prove that it is valid”
Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, explaining the burden of proof regarding signature presumptions
Emad Selim appealed a judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank. The case involved a dispute over signature validity on a promissory note or loan document…
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 Negotiable Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (explaining “the term ‘presumed’ in section 673.3081(1) means that until some evidence is introduced which would support a finding that the signature is forged or unauthorized, the plaintiff was not required to prove that it is valid (citing UCC comment 1 to section 673.3081), and because defendants failed to make any evidentiary showing to support their claim that the signer was unauthorized, plaintiff was entitled to rely on the presumption to obtain summary final judgment” (citing Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 124 So. 3d 320, 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013))); Klein v. Royale Grp., Ltd., 578 So. 2d 394, 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“[T]here is nothing in the statute or the case decisions that deny enforceability merely because the required documentary stamps have been belatedly purchased and affixed.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Suarez v. State, 578 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 124 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)