The section, and what it is aimed at
Any provisions of this code governing the legal effect, validity, or enforceability of electronic records or electronic signatures, and of contracts formed or performed with the use of such records or signatures, are deemed to conform to the requirements of s. 102 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 7002, and supersede, modify, and limit the requirements of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.
Section 736.1301, Florida Statutes. Enacted in 2006 and never amended.
The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, universally called E-SIGN, is a federal statute that makes electronic signatures and records generally valid. It also contains, at section 102, a mechanism allowing a state to supersede, modify or limit its requirements, provided the state law meets certain conditions.
This section is Florida pulling that lever, in advance, for the entire Trust Code. It says that whatever chapter 736 provides about electronic records and signatures is deemed to satisfy the federal conditions and displaces the federal Act.
What it does not do, which is the part that matters
People arriving at this section from a search reasonably expect it to say whether a Florida trust can be signed electronically. It does not address that at all.
The section is entirely derivative. Read the opening words, any provisions of this code governing. It operates on provisions that already exist elsewhere in chapter 736. It creates no rule of its own, permits nothing, and prohibits nothing.
So if the Trust Code is silent on some electronic question, this section adds nothing to the silence. It is a conflict of laws rule, not a source of authority.
Where the answers actually are
If your question is whether a trust was validly signed, the section to read is section 736.0403, on execution requirements. A revocable trust with testamentary aspects needs two attesting witnesses, Florida courts have construed that strictly, and reformation will not rescue a document that failed to comply.
If your question is about delivering documents electronically during administration, the substantive machinery is in section 736.0109, which permits notice by email and by posting to a secure website, subject to detailed conditions and a written authorisation. That is the section where electronic dealing in Florida trust administration is genuinely regulated, and it has real consequences, including the ability to start a limitation period running.
Between those two sections and this one, only this one is about federal preemption, and only the other two decide anything.
No Florida court has cited this section
A search returns no citing documents at any precedential status in any court we searched. Because this batch produced an unbroken run of zeros, we verified the search before reporting it, including by running the same query against sections known to have case law and confirming they returned hits.
The silence is unsurprising. A preemption switch of this kind is invoked only if someone argues that federal law displaces a Florida provision on electronic records, and that argument would first require a Florida provision worth displacing.
It is worth knowing the section exists for one narrow reason. If a party ever contends that E-SIGN overrides something the Trust Code says about electronic records or signatures, this is the answer to that contention, and it was put in place in 2006 in anticipation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does section 736.1301 allow a Florida trust to be signed electronically?
No. The section confers nothing. It states that provisions of the Trust Code governing electronic records and signatures are deemed to conform to section 102 of the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act and supersede, modify and limit that Act.
What is E-SIGN and why does this matter?
E-SIGN is a federal statute that generally makes electronic signatures and records valid. Section 102 of it allows a state to supersede, modify or limit its requirements in certain ways. This section is Florida exercising that permission in advance, across the whole Trust Code.
So what is the practical effect?
Where chapter 736 says something about the legal effect, validity or enforceability of electronic records or signatures, the Florida provision governs and the federal Act does not displace it.
What if the Trust Code says nothing about a question?
Then this section does nothing either. It operates only on provisions of the code that already govern the subject, so it cannot fill a gap.
Where should I look for the rules on signing a trust?
At the execution requirements. Section 736.0403 governs the formalities for a revocable trust with testamentary aspects, which require two attesting witnesses, and Florida courts have applied that strictly.
Has a court ever cited this section?
No. Our review found no citing decision at all.
Common Situations
You want to know if an electronic trust is valid. This section does not say. Read the execution requirements.
Someone argues federal law overrides the Trust Code. This is the provision addressing that argument.
You are dealing with electronic notices. Section 736.0109 is the operative provision.
You are researching electronic wills or trusts. This section will appear in results and will not help.
Sources of Law
- Section 736.1301, Florida Statutes (2025). Enacted by s. 13, ch. 2006-217 and never amended.
- Section 102 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 7002.
- Section 736.0403, Florida Statutes, on execution requirements for trusts.
- Section 736.0109, Florida Statutes, on methods of notice, including electronic posting.
- No Florida court has cited this section. Our review found no citing document at any precedential status. Before publishing that we confirmed the search returned a count rather than an error, ran the same query against two sections known to have case law and received hits from both, and searched our own case files independently.
- Our review searched the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida District Courts of Appeal, the Florida federal district courts, the Florida bankruptcy courts and the Eleventh Circuit on August 16, 2026, requesting every precedential status rather than the default view. We report a nil result as our own review and not as a certainty, and we confirm that a section number actually appears in a decision before relying on it, having now found three search results for statutes whose numbers appear nowhere in the opinions returned.
- Decisions discussed here are published opinions in other parties’ cases. They are not matters handled by this firm and they predict nothing about any reader’s case. No commercial citator pass has been run on this research.
Updated on August 16, 2026. Reviewed by Kevin D. Klagge, Esq., Fla. Bar No. 99502. Attorney Kevin Klagge represents families, businesses, and international clients in estate and tax planning, business structuring, and international law, with a focus on Florida legal tools. He litigates estate and business issues in court. General information about Florida law and published court decisions, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created. Reading this page does not make us your lawyers. Please do not send confidential details until we have connected.
