Lowenstein v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 98-1384

Citation720 So.2d 596
Decision Date21 October 1998
Docket NumberNo. 98-1384,98-1384
Parties23 Fla. L. Weekly D2376, 36 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1139 Leonard LOWENSTEIN, Appellant, v. BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A., Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Leonard Lowenstein, in proper person.

Lucio, Mandler, Croland, Bronstein, Garbett, Stiphany & Martinez and David S. Garbett, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GREEN, JJ.

On Motion For Clarification

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellee's motion for clarification solely to correct the Florida statute cited and we substitute the following opinion for our original opinion which was issued on October 1, 1998.

A bank customer appeals a final judgment dismissing his claim against the bank for repayment of a number of alleged forged checks. We affirm.

In 1991, the customer opened two accounts at Barnett Bank. He claims that between 1991 and 1994 Barnett cashed eighty one forged checks. During this time, the customer was in federal custody at two different correctional institutions. In 1995, some months after his release and the discovery of the discrepancies, the customer signed affidavits of forgery for $100,553.20.

Thereafter, Barnett notified him the bank would not repay the funds sought, and the customer filed the instant action. The customer claimed that in his absence and without his permission the checks had been forged by a family member. Barnett maintained that although statements had been regularly sent to the customer, 1 as to all but the last six checks, the customer failed to discover and report the forgeries within one year. Thus, the bank argued, the customer was precluded from recovery under section 674.406(4) Florida Statutes (1991), moved after January 1, 1993, to section 674.406(6) Florida Statutes (1995).

After a hearing on the matter, final judgment was entered against Barnett for $21,032.88, based on Barnett's stipulation to liability on the last six alleged forged checks, the balance of the customer's claim was rejected and final judgment was issued in Barnett's favor.

Section 674.406(6) provides as did its predecessor:

Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank, a customer who does not within 1 year after the statement or items are made available to the customer (subsection (1)) discover and report the customer's unauthorized signature on or any alteration on the item is precluded from asserting against the bank the unauthorized signature or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Anderson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 27 Julio 2015
    ...items.")18 ; Lowenstein v. Barnett Bank of S. Florida, N.A., 789 So.2d 1012, 1013–14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)opinion clarified, 720 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citation omitted) ("As mandated by section 674.406, the customer had an obligation to examine bank statements and notify the bank withi......
  • Redland Co., Inc. v. Bank of America Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 13 Abril 2009
    ...to examine bank statements and notify the bank" of any claimed errors or unauthorized activity. Lowenstein v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 720 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Fla. Stat. § 674.406; see also Cheese & Grill, 970 So.2d at 375. Cheese & Grill demonstrates that when a bankin......
  • Lowenstein v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 18 Marzo 1999

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