FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PALM BEACH AND SKYLAKE STATE BANK, 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.
Florida National Bank lacked standing to sue as assignee of a conversion claim because Article 9 of the UCC does not permit assignment of tort claims, and the security interest granted by UCC-1 form could not transfer such claims.
A security interest granted under UCC Article 9 cannot transfer a tort conversion claim, and therefore the assignee lacks standing to sue on such a claim.
[1] Article 9 of the UCC does not apply to the transfer of claims arising out of tort, and therefore a security interest cannot effectively assign a conversion claim.
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 intelligenceFlorida National Bank obtained a security interest in the accounts of Adamello Lines, Inc. via a UCC-1 form. It sued as Adamello's assignee to recover…
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 Assignment cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant, Florida National Bank, is a financing bank which was granted a security interest, evidenced by a UCC-1 form, in the accounts of Adamello Lines, Inc. In the present action, brought as Ada-mello’s assignee, it sought to recover from collecting and drawee banks on the ground that, after the assignment, they had improperly paid third persons on checks made payable to Adamello which had been allegedly transferred by an unauthorized representative of that corporation without appropriate endorsements. See § 673.419, Fla. Stat. (1983); O.K. Moving & Storage Co. v. Elgin National Bank, 363 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1978); Siegel Trading Co. v. Coral Ridge National Bank, 328 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
This action is one which sounds in the tort of conversion. See O.K. Moving & Storage Co., 363 So. 2d at 162; Siegel Trading Co., 328 So. 2d at 477-78. It is evident, however, that there was no effective assignment of such a claim under the instru ments in question. Section 679.104(11), Florida Statutes (1983), specifically provides that Article 9 of the UCC “does not apply ... [t]o a transfer in whole or in part of any claim arising out of tort....” See In re Ore Cargo, Inc., 544 F. 2d 80 (2d Cir.1976). Thus, as the appellees asserted below, the appellant lacks standing to maintain this proceeding. On that basis, without reaching the other grounds relied upon in the trial court and on appeal, the judgment under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Interdevco, Inc. v. Hollywood Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 523 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…dge, as collateral, a tort claim or proceeds from such a claim. The subject escrow account consists solely of proceeds from Interdevco’s tort claim against the engineers and architects. In Florida National Bank v. First National Bank of Palm Beach, 507 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we held that under article 9 of the UCC there could be no effective lien against the proceeds of a tort claim. The controlling provision is section 679.104(11), Florida Statutes (1985), which provides that article 9 does not appl…
Authorities Cited
- Caruthers v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 328 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Siegel Trading Co., Inc. v. Coral Ridge Nat'l Bank, 328 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Hocker v. Hocker, 363 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- In re ORE Cargo, Inc. v. Jacob Gottesman in Bankr. of Ore Cargo, Inc., 544 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1976)