ALVIN J. MESSEROFF AND ANN J. MESSEROFF, EACH INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE FATHER AND MOTHER OF AND NEXT FRIEND OF WILLIAM DOUGLAS MESSEROFF, A MINOR, AND MARJORIE MESSEROFF, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
IRVING KANTOR ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Appellants sought recovery from two banks that processed settlement draft proceeds that were misappropriated by their attorney through forged endorsements. The court affirmed summary judgment for the banks, holding that collecting banks bear no liability to the true owner except for proceeds remaining in their possession.
Collecting banks bear no liability to the true owner of a draft except for proceeds remaining in their possession. Exchange National Bank was a collecting bank under § 673.3-120, Fla. Stat., not a drawee, and therefore is not liable for the full draft amount.
[1] An unauthorized endorsement on a draft does not bar an action by a payee against the drawee bank that ultimately pays the draft.
[2] A bank designated as "payable through" a particular bank is considered a collecting bank for purposes of presentment, but this designation does not authorize the bank to…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is well settled both under pre-code and post-code law that an unauthorized endorsement does not operate to bar an action by a payee against the drawee bank who ultimately pays the draft.”
Establishes the general principle that unauthorized endorsements do not bar payee actions against drawee banks, setting up the distinction the court must make.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were co-payees of settlement drafts in a personal injury claim. Their attorney, also a co-payee, fraudulently endorsed the appellants' sign…
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 Collecting Bank Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants filed a complaint against all the appellees. The trial judge granted summary judgments in favor of Irving Kantor, Harold Kantor, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. and Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The appellants then filed an amended complaint against the two appellees, Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven, Florida and the Jefferson National Bank of Miami Beach. The trial judge granted a summary judgment in favor of the appellees, Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven, Florida and Jefferson National Bank of Miami Beach, Florida from which the appellants have filed this appeal.
The appellants were co-payees of a draft representing settlement proceeds in a personal injury claim. The drafts in question *555were drawn in such a fashion that they were payable through the Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven, Florida. The appellants’ previous attorney, who was also the co-payee of the drafts, unauthor-' izedly endorsed the appellants’ signatures on the drafts in question and deposited them in his trust account at the Jefferson National Bank of Miami Beach via the Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven, Florida; and the ultimate drawees of the drafts being the insurance companies in question.
It is well settled both under pre-code and post-code law that an unauthorized endorsement does not operate to bar an action by a payee against the drawee bank who ultimately pays the draft. However, in our particular factual situation, the drawee, as indicated by the present state of the record, was the insurance company.
The trial court entered a summary final judgment in favor of both appellee banks on the basis that § 673.3-419(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., makes it clear that the banks which operate as intermediary or collecting banks shall bear no liability to the true owner of a draft or check except for those proceeds which may remain in the possession of said bank.
As to the appellee, Jefferson National Bank of Miami Beach, the record is clear that it was a collecting bank within the purview of § 673.3 — 419 (3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. However, we must look to another area of the code to determine if, in fact, the Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven, Florida was also a collecting bank or a drawee.
The draft in question indicates that the monies are “payable through” the Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven, Florida. The commercial practice of making drafts payable at or through a particular bank is recognized by the code in § 673.3-120, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which clearly indicates that instruments “payable through” a bank or the like designates that bank as a collecting bank to make presentment, but does not of itself authorize the bank to pay the instrument. In the case sub judice, and in light of the uncontro-verted affidavit filed by the appellee, Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven, Florida, it is clear that State Farm and not Exchange National Bank was the “drawee.” Having established that both defendant banks in the present cause were collecting banks and not drawees, the action of the trial judge should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson Vitrified China Co. v. People's Am. Nat'l Bank OF N. Miami, 388 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…Ridge National Bank, 328 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Keane v. Pan American Bank, 309 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Robert A. Sullivan Construction Co., Inc. v. Wilton Manors National Bank, 290 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Messeroff v. Kantor, 261 So. 2d 553 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). See generally Murray, Commercial Law, 31 U.Miami L.Rev. 895, 916- [*1061] 17 (1977); Murray, Commercial Law, 30 U.Miami L.Rev. 63, 92-93 (1975). Courts of other jurisdictions have, however, closely analyzed its terms. Judicial ap…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Allstate Ins. Co., 391 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…udgment below. The plaintiff’s theory of the case was bottomed on the clearly established principles that because they were payable “through” a collecting bank, Allstate is deemed the drawee of the drafts involved in this case, Messeroff v. Kantor, 261 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972);1 § 673.120, Fla. Stat. (1979), and that a drawee is liable for the conversion of a negotiable instrument when it is paid upon the forged or unauthorized endorsement of a co-payee. § 673.419(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1979); Annot., Bank’s…
-
Jan and Myrtle Bloempoort v. Regency Bank OF Fla., 567 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…h states that “[a]n instrument is converted when: ... it is paid on a forged indorsement.”2 It appears to us that the Bloempoorts’ ability to sue the Regency Bank literally fits the statutory language. A statement extracted from Messeroff v. Kantor, 261 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), seems suited to this view of the statute: “It is well settled both under pre- [*925] code and post-code law that an unauthorized endorsement does not operate to bar an action by a payee against the drawee bank who (sic) ultimatel…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence