SELIM v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., Appellee. (2023)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Emad SELIM, et al., Appellants, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., Appellee.

No. 3D21-2310

Decided: September 06, 2023

Before LOGUE, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

David J. Winker, P.A., and David John Winker, for appellant, Emad Selim. Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Kimberly S. Mello, and Arda Goker (Orlando), for appellee.

Affirmed. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (explaining “the term ‘presumed’ in section 673.3081(1) means that until some evidence is introduced which would support a finding that the signature is forged or unauthorized, the plaintiff was not required to prove that it is valid (citing UCC comment 1 to section 673.3081), and because defendants failed to make any evidentiary showing to support their claim that the signer was unauthorized, plaintiff was entitled to rely on the presumption to obtain summary final judgment” (citing Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 124 So. 3d 320, 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013))); Klein v. Royale Grp., Ltd., 578 So. 2d 394, 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“[T]here is nothing in the statute or the case decisions that deny enforceability merely because the required documentary stamps have been belatedly purchased and affixed.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network