Coutant v. SunBank South Florida, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coutant v. SunBank South Florida, N.A.

813 So. 2d 1037, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4964, 2002 WL 561700

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-1005

StatusPublished

This text of 813 So. 2d 1037 (Coutant v. SunBank South Florida, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coutant v. SunBank South Florida, N.A., 813 So. 2d 1037, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4964, 2002 WL 561700 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

We affirm a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, SunBank. Sun-Bank negotiated a check in accordance with the intent of the maker, the only authorized signator on the account.

Coutant does not challenge the signator’s authority to withdraw funds from the account. Instead, Coutant’s claim is founded on SunBank’s payment of the check for the amount stated in numeral form, where that amount varied significantly from the amount expressed in lettered form. We have considered, and reject, Coutant’s assertion that section 673.1141, Florida Statutes (2001), creates an independent cause of action. Section 673.1141 provides that, where an instrument contains contradictory provisions, the words prevail over the numerals. However, nothing contained in that statute excuses application of the condition precedent to suit provisions governing bank-customer relations contained in section 674.406, Florida Statutes. As those provisions are applicable, SunBank was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.

SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STONE, J.

We affirm a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, SunBank. Sun-Bank negotiated a check in accordance with the intent of the maker, the only authorized signator on the account.

Coutant does not challenge the signator’s authority to withdraw funds from the account. Instead, Coutant’s claim is founded on SunBank’s payment of the check for the amount stated in numeral form, where that amount varied significantly from the amount expressed in lettered form. We have considered, and reject, Coutant’s assertion that section 673.1141, Florida Statutes (2001), creates an independent cause of action. Section 673.1141 provides that, where an instrument contains contradictory provisions, the words prevail over the numerals. However, nothing contained in that statute excuses application of the condition precedent to suit provisions governing bank-customer relations contained in section 674.406, Florida Statutes. As those provisions are applicable, SunBank was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.

SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

813 So. 2d 1037, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4964, 2002 WL 561700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coutant-v-sunbank-south-florida-na-fladistctapp-2002.