Gerber v. City Nat. Bank of Florida

Decision Date04 May 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-1638,92-1638
Citation619 So.2d 328
Parties18 Fla. L. Week. D1156, 20 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 574 Steven E. GERBER, Appellant, v. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

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. Section 4-406(4), states:

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 are made available to the customer (subsection (1)) discover and report his unauthorized signature or any alteration on the face or back of the item or does not within 3 years from that time discover and report any unauthorized indorsement is precluded from asserting against the bank such unauthorized signature or indorsement or such alteration.

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. We agree.

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 Sec. 674.406(4) with Sec. 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. See Space Distributors, Inc. v. Flagship Bank of Melbourne, N.A., 402 So.2d 586, 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

While we acknowledge a split of authority on this issue, we believe our interpretation of U.C.C. Section 4-406(4), which is in accord with numerous other jurisdictions, is the better reasoned approach. See G & R Corp. v. American Security & Trust Co., 523 F.2d 1164, 1170 (D.C.Cir.1975); Coast-to-Coast Stores, Inc. v. Citizens Bank, 676 F.Supp. 923, 925 (E.D.Ark.1987); Hanover Ins. Cos. v. Brotherhood State Bank, 482 F.Supp. 501, 505 (D.Kan.1979); Indiana Nat'l Corp. v. FACO, Inc., 400 N.E.2d 202, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1980); Jensen v. Essexbank, 396 Mass. 65, 483 N.E.2d 821, 822 (1985); Knight Communications, Inc. v. Boatmen's Nat'l Bank of St. Louis, 805 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Mo.Ct.App.1991); Brighton, Inc. v. Colonial First Nat'l Bank, 176 N.J.Super. 101, 422 A.2d 433, 437 (Ct.App.Div.1980), aff'd, 86 N.J. 259, 430 A.2d 902 (1981); Stauffer v. Oakwood Deposit Bank, 19 Ohio App.2d 68, 249 N.E.2d 848, 852 (1969); McMickle v. Girard Bank, 356 Pa.Super. 521, 515 A.2d 16, 17 (1986); Silvia v. Industrial Nat'l Bank of R.I., 121 R.I. 810, 403 A.2d 1075, 1078 (1979); Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 589 S.W.2d 737, 742 (Tex.Civ.App.1979), rev'd on other grounds, 602 S.W.2d 527 (Tex.1980). See also, 7 Ronald A. Anderson, Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code, Sec. 4-406:11 (3d ed. Supp.1992) ("The section of the Code in question is not a time limitation of the right to sue but 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 recovery on others, depending upon when bank statements are issued and when notice is given. See Space Distributors, 402 So.2d at 589; Sun...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Certification from the U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash. in Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. v. Wash. Trust Bank
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 3, 2016
    ...proposition as Seattle–First ).13 See also Brown v. Cash Mgmt. Tr. of Am. , 963 F.Supp. 504 (D. Md. 1997); Gerber v. City Nat'l Bank of Fla. , 619 So.2d 328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)(citing cases from numerous jurisdictions in accord).14 RCW 62A.4–406(b)provides:If the items are not return......
  • Euro Motors, Inc. v. Southwest Financial Bank and Trust Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 1, 1998
    ...Concrete Materials Corp., 938 S.W.2d at 258. Many other jurisdictions have come to the same conclusion. See Gerber v. City National Bank, 619 So.2d 328 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (holding that statute imposing duty on customer to discover and report unauthorized In addition to the overwhelming ......
  • Amer. Airlines Empl Fed Credit Union v. Martin
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • September 7, 2000
    ...Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 4.401(a), amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 921, § 4. 44. See, e.g., Gerber v. City Nat'l Bank of Florida, 619 So.2d 328, 329 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993); Indiana Nat'l Corp. d/b/a Indiana Nat'l Bank v. FACO, Inc., 400 N.E.2d 202, 205, (Ind. Ct. App. 1980); Je......
  • Lowenstein v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 98-1384
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 1998
    ...The customer's failure to timely discover and report the forgeries, bars his claim as a matter of law. See Gerber v. City Nat'l Bank of Fla., 619 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Space Distribs., Inc. v. Flagship Bank, 402 So.2d 586, 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Having failed to fulfill this statu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT