## Facts

- Corfan Banco Asuncion, Paraguay initiated a $72,972 wire transfer to Ocean Bank for its customer, Jorge Alberto Dos Santos Silva.
- The payment order correctly stated Silva’s name but listed an account number that did not correspond to any Ocean Bank account.
- Ocean Bank confirmed Silva’s correct account number with Silva and credited Silva’s actual account without notifying Corfan Bank or the intermediary bank of the discrepancy or correction.
- Believing the first transfer failed, Corfan Bank sent a second $72,972 wire transfer the next day using Silva’s correct account number.
- Ocean Bank credited the second transfer to Silva’s account in the ordinary course.
- Silva withdrew the proceeds of both transfers ($145,944 total).
- Corfan Bank demanded return of one $72,972 payment; Ocean Bank refused.
- Corfan Bank sued Ocean Bank under Florida Statutes § 670.207 (U.C.C. § 4A-207) and for common-law negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Florida Statutes § 670.207, a beneficiary’s bank can accept a payment order that names an intended beneficiary but identifies a nonexistent beneficiary account number.
2. Whether Article 4A preempts a common-law negligence claim seeking recovery for an alleged misdescription-related loss in a funds transfer.

## Decision

- Reversed the summary judgment for Ocean Bank on the § 670.207 claim and remanded.
- Held that when the beneficiary identification in the payment order refers to a nonexistent or unidentifiable account, no person has beneficiary rights and acceptance cannot occur under § 670.207.
- Affirmed dismissal of the negligence claim because it would impose duties and liabilities inconsistent with Article 4A’s statutory allocation of risk.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida Statutes § 670.207 (U.C.C. § 4A-207), if the name, account number, or other beneficiary identification in a payment order refers to a nonexistent or unidentifiable person or account, no beneficiary rights arise and acceptance of the order cannot occur.
- Courts apply the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute unless a literal reading produces an unreasonable or ridiculous result.
- Article 4A provides a comprehensive remedial and risk-allocation scheme for wire transfers; common-law negligence claims that conflict with Article 4A are preempted.

## Conclusion

The court held that a wire transfer order referencing a nonexistent beneficiary account number cannot be accepted under § 670.207 even if the bank can identify the intended recipient by name, and it treated Article 4A as the exclusive framework for resolving such funds-transfer disputes, barring inconsistent negligence remedies.


Corfan Banco Asuncion Paraguay v. Ocean Bank, 715 So. 2d 967 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1998)