Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

of two subscribing witnesses, as required by Section 689.01 Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., for the conveyance

...892 ; Battistone v. Banulski, 110 Conn. 267 , 147 Atl. 820 ; American Law institutes restatement of the law of property. The statutes of Florida abrogates many of these old feudal concepts and contemplates that any interest in land may be the subject of conveyance. Section 689.01, Florida Statutes 1941, provides that “No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than one year, or an uncertain interest of, in, or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments, shall be created, made, grant...

...gal effect. 4 . For example, under Florida law, Florida Mall would have to execute a deed conveying the property to Major, the consideration for the conveyance being the property desired by Florida Mall, hence a repurchase of the property. Fla.Stat. § 689.01 (1981)....

...(Emphasis added.) Whether subsection 689.075(1)(g) applies to Kahn's written inter vivos trust depends upon a threshold determination that the trust is "otherwise valid." In Florida, formalities for the conveyance of real property are similar to will execution formalities. § 689.01 (requiring real estate conveyances to be written and signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses), § 689.05 (requiring trusts of real property to be written and signed), Fla....

...r a time whereof mind of man runneth not to the contrary." Littleton, L.2, c. 10, § 170. [7] See 2 G. Thompson, Commentaries on The Modern Law of Real Property §§ 335 (text accompanying note 34), 337 (1980 replacement by J. Grimes). [8] See e.g., § 689.01, Fla....

...V-Strategic did not attach any type of agreement signed by an appropriate representative of Pro-Art; instead, all that was attached was a letter from Pro-Art's former counsel and a letter from the managing member of V-Strategic. Cf. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(a)-(b); §§ 689.01, 692.01, 692.02, Fla....

...can recover no damages against the defaulting defendant."). A related issue also remains for the parties and the appropriate trial court that might consider this dispute: Did this supposed lease-termination "agreement" comply with the formalities of section 689.01, Florida Statutes (2006)? That statutory section states: No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any uncertain interest of, in or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall be created...

subscribing witness; thus the express provision of Section 689.01, F. S., requiring two subscribing witnesses

...Liens § 13, p. 859. See also O.H. Thomason Builder's Supplies, Inc. v. Goodwin, Fla. App., 152 So.2d 797, where there is dicta to this effect. We adopt this rule. Neither our Statute of Frauds — § 725.01, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., nor our Recording Act — § 689.01, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., render an equitable lien unenforceable....

...As to statutory authority, section 693.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that any married woman possessing a right of dower *430 in realty may relinquish it by joining in the conveyance or mortgage of it or by executing a separate instrument without joinder of her husband "in like manner as other conveyances." Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., pertaining to the manner in which real estate may be conveyed, provides that conveyances shall be by instrument in writing and signed by the person making the conveyance in the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...and the Partnership Property to the defendants was void. Under Florida law, a conveyance of an interest in real property must be made by a written instrument that is signed by *317 the grantor in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. Fla.Stat. § 689.01 (1989)....

...g called the Village Spires. With this backdrop, defendant asserted six affirmative defenses, as follows: (a) Impossibility and abandonment. (b) Plaintiffs' failure to do equity (unclean hands). (c) Improper execution of the contract sued on under F.S. 689.01, F.S.A....

...on. (f) Laches and estoppel or waiver. Except for (f), laches and estoppel or waiver, these defenses were stricken upon plaintiffs' motion, for reasons not apparent. All were erroneously stricken except (c), improper execution of the contract under § 689.01, F.S. 1969, F.S.A. Section 689.01 provides: "689.01 How real estate conveyed....

...the party ... granting, .. . such estate, ... Corporations may convey in accordance with the provisions of this section or in accordance with the provisions of §§ 692.01 and 692.02." This defense was immaterial and, therefore, properly stricken as Section 689.01 applies to conveyances, not contracts to convey....

...This is also true in damage suits for breach of contract to convey property. Radabaugh v. Ware, Fla.App. 1970, 241 So.2d 738; see Kroner v. Esteves, supra. Since the property in question did not fall within the purview of the three classes, defendant's affirmative defense that the contract was not witnessed as required by Section 689.01 was immaterial to both the damages claim and specific performance claim and, therefore, was properly stricken....

...tion at the time appellees re-entered the premises. In our opinion the trial court properly struck that affirmative defense. The release, surrender or rescission of a lease for a term in excess of one year must be in writing signed before witnesses. § 689.01, Fla....

...The court rejected his argument that it was necessary for him to sign twice, once as President and once individually. It should also be noted that the absence of the corporate seal on the lease does not necessarily eradicate the corporate defendant's liability since Section 689.01, *937 Florida Statutes (1981), makes it unnecessary....

...Thereafter, Sultan filed a motion to dismiss claiming that all counts should be dismissed because: *933 the Plaintiff seeks relief of an executory lease which is not signed by one of the owners of the premises and is not witnessed by two witnesses and is thus unenforceable pursuant to Florida Statute § 689.01 [1993]. The trial court, after a hearing which was not transcribed, granted Sultan's motion to dismiss reasoning that the lease upon which the complaint was based was not witnessed, and therefore, failed to comply with the provisions of section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...hey were bona fide purchasers entitled to take title free of any claims by DGG. The Grantees counterclaimed, seeking to quiet title in themselves. Under Florida law, corporations may convey real property in accordance with the requirements of either section 689.01, Florida Statutes (2004), [2] section 692.01, Florida Statutes (2004), or section 692.02, Florida Statutes (2004). [3] Section 689.01 requires any conveyance of real property *1234 to be signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by a person or persons authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation, but does not require a seal....

...executing the document. Such authority is granted by statute. If the person executing the deed does not hold one of these offices, an authorizing resolution must be obtained and should be recorded. Similarly, if a deed is executed in compliance with section 689.01 but is signed by someone other than the president, vice-president or chief executive officer, an authorizing resolution from the board of directors must be obtained....

...The trial court was clearly in error in dismissing the amended complaint. It is argued by the appellees here that the cause of action set forth in the complaint is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A., and the Conveyancing Statute, Section 689.01, Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A....

...ether with $14,951.53 in prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment interest. Ilene Richmond, the only remaining appellant, [1] raises three issues: (1) whether the 2003 lease is unenforceable because it lacks two subscribing witnesses, as required by section 689.01, Florida Statutes; (2) alternatively, if the lease is deemed valid, whether judgment should have been granted for the lessor on the breach of contract claim where, under the 2003 lease, the lessor had "sole and unfettered discretion" t...

...In its post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with prior motions for directed verdict, S & I argued that the 2003 lease is a new lease which must comply with the statute of frauds. The 2003 lease was for a term in excess of ten years, but was signed by only one subscribing witness. See § 689.01, Fla....

...he 1995 lease, but a new lease with different terms and involving different parties. Therefore, the court's legal conclusion that the 2003 agreement was a renewal lease was erroneous. And, because the 2003 lease was a new lease, it must comport with section 689.01 to be enforceable....

...3d DCA 1997) ("Invited error occurs when the appellant somehow induced the specific ruling by her affirmative action or inactivity.") (emphasis added). On the merits, we find that, regardless of whether the lease was deemed new or a renewal, two signatures were required under the applicable statute of frauds, § 689.01. We further find that, given the particular facts herein, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply. Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, requires that a lease for a term of more than one year be in writing and signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses: No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any uncertain int...

...or released in any other manner than by instrument in writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party creating, making, granting, conveying, transferring or releasing such estate, interest, or term of more than 1 year,.... § 689.01, Fla....

...subscribing witness); Tino v. Outdoor Media, Inc., 242 So.2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (affirming trial court's dismissal of complaint for breach of lease where lease was invalid and unenforceable, in part, because it was "not witnessed as required by § 689.01, Fla. Stat."). It is undisputed that the 2003 lease had only one subscribing witness, and thus, failed to comply with section 689.01....

...Rosman, 312 So.2d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), as the key case on the issue. In Taylor, the tenant moved to dismiss a complaint seeking rent payments under the second lease between the parties. Id. at 240. The tenant argued the lease was unenforceable under section 689.01, because there was only one subscribing witness....

...The court therefore concluded that "the second agreement was not a `new lease' as contended by the appellee, but merely constituted an extension by renewal of the first lease." Id. (emphasis added). The court further held that the tenant was estopped to defeat the second lease agreement by asserting section 689.01 because she and her husband occupied the apartment for almost two years under the similar first rental agreement, making rental payments thereunder. Id. at 241. To the extent Taylor suggests that a renewal lease would not have to meet the two-witness requirement under section 689.01, we disagree with the opinion in Taylor....

...To the contrary, it states in relevant part that " [n]o estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, ... shall be created, made, granted, transferred or released in any other manner than by instrument in writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses ...." § 689.01 (emphasis added.) As for Taylor 's finding that the tenant was estopped to defeat the second lease agreement by asserting section 689.01 because she and her husband occupied the property for almost two years under the similar first rental agreement, making rental payments thereunder, 312 So.2d at 241, the Third District more recently noted in Skylake Insurance Agency, Inc....

...The trial court entered summary judgment for the landlord, and the tenant appealed. Id. The Third District found that "the bare failure of the landlord to have his signature witnessed does not give rise to an estoppel, because to so hold would in effect render section 689.01 unenforceable....

...n insubstantial way. " Id. at 178 (emphasis added). No such facts were shown in that case. Id. Accordingly, the court affirmed that part of the trial court's order which denied specific performance because of the lack of two-witness signatures under section 689.01....

...with the Leibecks. Robert answered the complaint, asserted affirmative defenses, and counterclaimed. Among his many contentions, Robert asserted that the contract was unenforceable because it did not have the signatures of two witnesses required by section 689.01, Florida Statutes, and because the contract had been breached by Marion....

...status as a legal issue requires that we resolve it based on the de novo standard of review. Robert asserts the contract is invalid because it was not executed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. He bases this argument on the provisions of section 689.01, Florida Statutes, which essentially require that for a transfer of real estate or an interest in it to be valid, the instrument of conveyance must be in writing and signed by the grantor in the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...306, 195 So. 170 (1939); Wertkin v. Wertkin, 763 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Martyn v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 257 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); see also Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co. v. DeWitt, 458 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Therefore, section 689.01 does not apply to mortgages, see Walker v....

...l provisions [2] a homestead could only be mortgaged by a "duly executed" instrument; and the courts uniformly held that "duly executed" under these provisions meant that such a mortgage had to be executed with the formality of a deed as required by § 689.01 of our statutes which, going back to 1891, required the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...As easement is an interest in land that must be created and conveyed with the formalities required by law. Basically this statement means that no easement can be created or transferred except by a written instrument signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party creating, granting or conveying the easement. § 689.01, Fla....

...Gulf Properties of Alabama, 40 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1949), or where there is ambiguity as to the extent of an easement validly created by a written document, see, e.g., Dorsey v. Behm, 356 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In this situation the deed or other written document satisfies the statutes (§§ 689.01 and 725.01, Fla....

...However, the elusive difference between an action based on a promise implied in fact (which is within the statute of frauds) and an action based on rights and obligations implied as a matter of law, saves this exceptional situation from the effect of the statutes (§§ 689.01 and 725.01, Fla....

...4th 1970), with the Third District's holding here at 264 So.2d 73 (Fla.App.3d 1972). Fla. Const. art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A. The question involved is the requirement of two subscribing witnesses on a deposit receipt in order to obtain specific performance conveying title. Fla. Stat. § 689.01, F.S.A....

...is no requirement under the statute for subscribing witnesses as a predicate for specific performance. Zimmerman v. Diedrich, 97 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1957). There is bare language in Radabaugh reciting the requirement of execution with the formalities of § 689.01 for specific performance which does not specifically mention in this isolated statement that it is limited to homestead property, citing Petersen v....

...Glover was the fee simple owner of the land described as Parcel 49-3 at the time the order of taking was entered herein, and that the Defendants M. Lucius Walker and Inez Walker, his wife, have no valid claim or interest in the land described as Parcel 49-3 or any awarding to be made therefor." F.S. 689.01 requires that an interest in land be conveyed "by instrument in writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party * * * conveying * * *"....

...mitted the execution of the contract it was not executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses. This fact was not made known to the appellees until the appellants filed their answer in this suit on the 5th day of December, 1953. It is true that Section 689.01, F.S., F.S.A., requires that the instrument be signed "in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party so assigning or surrendering, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorized, or by the act and operation of law"....

...Subsequently appellees declined to convey the property. Appellants instituted suit for damages arising from breach of contract. The trial court determined that the alleged contract was invalid and would not support the action. Final judgment was entered for the appellees and this appeal followed. Section 689.01, Florida Statutes 1967, F.S.A., provides in part: "No estate or interest of freehold * * * shall be created, made, granted, *739 transferred or released in any other manner than by instrument in writing, signed in the presence of two s...

...statute does not require that contracts to purchase be executed with the same formality as instruments of transfer. However, an action for specific performance will not lie unless the contract has been executed with the formalities required by F.S. Section 689.01, F.S.A....

...egal duty to convey the homestead property which was the subject of the contract. The authorities cited above make it amply clear that an obligation does not arise unless and until the contract has been executed with the formalities required by F.S. Section 689.01, F.S.A....

...ters was insufficient to authorize the conveyance of the subject condominium unit because it lacked a description of the real property to be conveyed thereby failing to meet the requirements of the formalities of a deed of conveyance as set forth in Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1971); and (3) the power of attorney being invalid, the July 1972 deed to Miriam Bloom is void....

...re to be leased" to appellees and to grant such general relief as might appear appropriate. In the answer in that suit the defendant, the appellant now, among other affirmative defenses, asserted that the agreement contravened the Statute of Frauds, Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, 1941, and F.S.A....

...[3] Although on its face the deed shows that the signatures of both Greens were witnessed by two individuals, and the Trottas had no reason to believe otherwise, the appellee seeks to justify the judgment on the ground that, in fact, Mrs. Green's signature was witnessed by only one person. See § 689.01, Fla....

...of the 1958 transfer of all of Sam's interest in the partnership assets to Harold, as it concerns their respective equitable rights and those of their heirs to the disputed property. See, Shanks v. Klein, 104 U.S. 18, 26 L.Ed. 635 (1881). [14] See, Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1977).

...On July 2, 1983, Marie Yates, as personal representative of the Estate of William Yates, filed a complaint seeking cancellation of the deed. Mrs. Yates moved for summary judgment on the basis that the deed was void as a matter of law because it was not executed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses as required by Section 689.01, Florida Statutes....

...fetime of the purported grantor and was, therefore, null and void and of no legal effect." Contrary to the trial court's ruling, we find that the record in this case does not demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to the validity of the deed. Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, does not require that witnesses must subscribe in the presence of the grantor or in the presence of each other, nor does it require that the subscribing witnesses sign the document before delivery is accomplished....

...mary decree in favor of the appellees. Appellants contend that both the original lease and the assignment by the Goldsteins to the appellees are void and unenforceable since they do not bear the signatures of two subscribing witnesses as required by § 689.01, Fla....

...subject premises, sublet them to a third party, and made rental payments for a substantial portion of the term of the lease. We hold that they are estopped by this conduct to contend that the lease and assignment were invalid under the provisions of § 689.01, supra....

...ment that deeds and mortgages of homestead be "duly executed." We explained that the words "duly executed" as contained in the old constitution had been construed to mean that a mortgage had to be executed with the formality of a deed as required by Section 689.01 of our statutes and that this section called for two witnesses....

...that the elimination of the words "duly executed" had the effect of rendering the previous decisions on homestead mortgages no longer applicable. We must now decide whether the rationale of Wickes is applicable to contracts to sell homestead realty. Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1975), provides that no real estate shall be transferred except by an instrument in writing signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...ally bound to execute a deed by virtue of having signed the contract. Zimmerman v. Diedrich, 97 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1957); Dolan v. Wright, 289 So.2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Kroner v. Esteves, 245 So.2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Since there is nothing in Section 689.01 to differentiate homestead realty, the requirement for witnesses on a contract to convey homestead had to come from another source. A study of the evolution of this requirement demonstrates that it was grounded upon the "duly executed" provision of the old constitution relating to homesteads and that Section 689.01 was only pertinent for the purpose of determining what these words meant....

...ll his home, because once the contract is signed it is subject to specific enforcement. We suggest that these are arguments which should be directed to the legislature. We believe we would be overstepping our bounds to decide for policy reasons that Section 689.01 should be interpreted to require two witnesses on a contract to convey homestead realty when the same statute has always been construed as not requiring two witnesses on a contract to convey nonhomestead realty....

...he form prescribed for conveyances of her real property and for relinquishment of dower." It has been held that Section 708.07 as amended in 1947, did not dispense with requirements of two witnesses. Abercrombie v. Eidschun, Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 875. Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., requires that any estate or interest for a term of more than one year be made by instrument in writing and signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...two witnesses as required by statute for valid conveyances and for enforceable contracts to convey the separate property of married women and to relinquish dower, the Court in its opinion saying: "* * * The only statute cited in the opinion was Sec. 689.01, supra....

...693.03, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A. At the time it was also the law of the state that an estate or interest of freehold could not be created or granted save by an instrument in writing `signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses * * *.' Sec. 689.01, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A....

...onal provisions a homestead could only be mortgaged by a `duly executed' instrument; and the courts uniformly held that `duly executed ' under these provisions meant that such a mortgage had to be executed with the formality of a deed as required by § 689.01 of our statutes which, going back to 1891, required the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...8 Constitution which became effective on January 7, 1969. Therefore, our reference to the 1972 amendment was inadvertent because that amendment only changed other language in the subsection. [2] Dolan v. Wright, 289 So.2d 777 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). [3] § 689.01, Fla....

...(4th) 241 So.2d 738, and ruled there was no conflict because in Radabaugh the property was homestead which requires two witnesses for the sale thereof and in Koplon the property was not homestead; that when property is nonhomestead, there is no requirement under the statute (Section 689.01, Florida Statutes) for subscribing witnesses to a contract to sell it as a predicate for specific performance of such contract [citing Zimmerman v....

...The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment based on the pleadings, interrogatories of appellants and the deposition of a witness. Appellants contend that the lease was void because it was executed by an agent of the corporation and was subscribed by only one witness. Section 689.01, Fla....

...Attached to the motion was a copy of a quit claim deed dated June 1, 1967, from Arnold Santos to himself and his wife Carolyn Santos. The deed was signed and acknowledged by Santos but had only one subscribing witness, whereas the presence thereon of two subscribing witnesses was essential to its validity under § 689.01 Fla....

...We find no merit in that argument, for which no supporting authority was cited. Appellant argues further that although the deed was not effective as a conveyance to Carolyn Santos of an interest in the property, because it did not have two subscribing witnesses as required by § 689.01, it should be regarded as a valid *834 contract by Santos to convey to himself and his wife, thereby creating in Carolyn Santos an equitable interest in the property, so as to preclude an execution levy on the judgment against Santos....

...y averred the lease was not executed in behalf of the Bank by one authorized to do so. The trial court held the lease document inadmissible because it was not executed in behalf of the Bank by an agent "in the presence of two subscribing witnesses," Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1969), and it was not signed by the Bank's "president or any vice-president or chief executive officer." Section 692.01, Florida Statutes (1969)....

...defective because it was not signed by two subscribing witnesses as required by Florida law. Thus the quit claim deed was insufficient to convey title to Pack. The trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Countrywide, on that ground. Section 689.01 requires that an interest in land be conveyed "by instrument in writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party ......

...Of course, in a case such as this one, which involves real property — unlike the situations in the Rader and the Hector Supply Co . cases — an effective assent or consent to a separate transfer of entireties property by one spouse may be validly manifested and established only by a properly executed deed, F.S. § 689.01; Parken v....

...unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized. See also § 689.01, Fla....

...ghed by the policy against giving relief to a person who has entered into an illegal transaction. Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 9(1)(b) (2003). Even if illegality had been pleaded, this record would not justify summary judgment on that basis. [3] Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (2003), provides: No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any uncertain interest of, in or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall be created, made, granted, tran...

...ng that the quit-claim deeds were not the product of Dorothy's undue influence. Finally, Edward alleges error because the trial court refused to invalidate one of the deeds which was not properly notarized. However, pursuant to the plain language of section 689.01, a seal is not necessary to give validity to a deed otherwise properly executed in compliance with the statute....

...We hold that there is at present no such requirement. In Zimmerman v. Diedrich, 97 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1957), the supreme court held "that agreements to convey homestead property must, to be specifically enforceable, be signed in the presence of two witnesses as required by Section 689.01......

...Ware, 241 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), relied on by appellant, which was upheld by the supreme court in Koplon v. Smith, 271 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1972). The Zimmerman court explained that in formulating the rule it was relying on precedent which cited only section 689.01, (requiring two subscribing witnesses to deeds to the transfer of real estate), see Cox v....

...The execution of a contract to sell real property is similarly ungoverned by statute, although "one can become legally bound to execute a deed by virtue of having signed the contract." Carroll, 355 So.2d at 844. Carroll further explains: Since there is nothing in Section 689.01 to differentiate homestead realty, the requirement for witnesses on a contract to convey homestead had to come from another source. A study of the evolution of this requirement demonstrates that it was grounded upon the "duly executed" provision of the old constitution relating to homesteads and that Section 689.01 was only pertinent for the purpose of determining what these words meant....

...Ware , and while not clear from the Radabaugh opinion, that mortgage appears to have been executed before the effective date of the new Constitution. 342 So.2d at 841 (footnotes omitted). The Carroll court declined as legislative prerogative to undertake to interpret Section 689.01 "to require two witnesses on a contract to convey homestead realty when the same statute has always been construed as not requiring two witnesses on a contract to convey non-homestead realty." 355 So.2d at 845....

...The tenant argues that since the statute of frauds has been satisfied, the lease is enforceable. The landlord counters that for a lease of more than one year, there must be a "writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party ... granting... such ... term of more than 1 year...." § 689.01, Fla. Stat. (2003). [1] *177 Under its plain language, section 689.01 is applicable to a conveyance of real estate, including a lease of more than a year....

...4th DCA 1995); Burch v. Brinkley, 382 So.2d 440, 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Tino v. Outdoor Media, Inc., 242 So.2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); 34 Fla. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant § 32 (2007). The tenant points out, however, that there is an exception. The last sentence of section 689.01 states, "Corporations may convey in accordance with the provisions of this section or in accordance with the provisions of ss....

...instead a limited liability company under the Florida Limited Liability Company Act, chapter 608, Florida Statutes (2003) ("the Act," or "chapter 608"). The next question we consider is whether the lease is exempt from the two-witness requirement of section 689.01 because the lease was executed in accordance with requirements of the Act....

...The lessor's answer admits that the lease was signed and raises no claim that the lessor's signature was unauthorized. The lease was therefore executed in compliance with chapter 608. *178 The question, then, is whether the lease must also comply with the two-witness requirement of section 689.01....

...[2] It is amicus' view that section 608.4235 spells out who may execute an instrument conveying real property on behalf of a limited liability company. This part of chapter 608 explains which signatures third parties can rely on to convey a limited liability company's interest in real estate. Section 689.01, by contrast, governs conveyancing of real estate and imposes the two-witness requirement. The only express exception to section 689.01 is for corporate conveyances made in accordance with sections 692.01 and 692.02, Florida Statutes. There is no exception for limited liability companies. Section 689.01 was therefore applicable here. See DGG Dev. Corp. v. Estate of Capponi 983 So.2d 1232, 1233-34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). III. The next question we address is whether the landlord should be estopped from relying on the two-witness rule of section 689.01 because the landlord drafted the lease, failed to provide signature lines for the landlord's signature, and failed to have Mr. Hadad's signature witnessed when Mr. Hadad signed the document. Amicus explains that under some circumstances, estoppel will be applied to preclude a party from invoking section 689.01....

...3d DCA 1962); Lipkin v. Bonita Garden Apartments, Inc., 122 So.2d 623, 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Amicus argues, and we agree, that the bare failure of the landlord to have his signature witnessed does not give rise to an estoppel, because to so hold would in effect render section 689.01 unenforceable....

...For an estoppel to operate, the tenant must have changed position in more than an insubstantial way. No such facts have been shown here. Accordingly, we affirm that part of the trial court's order which denied specific performance because of the lack of two-witness signatures under section 689.01....

...sed premises for ten years. The lease complies with the requirements of the statute of frauds. See § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (2003). However, it fails as a conveyance of an interest in real estate because of the lack of witness signatures as required by section 689.01. Amicus states that "under certain circumstances, courts have allowed a party to pursue a claim involving a lease or deed that was defective under section 689.01, if the document otherwise complied with the requirements of section 725.01." That is the situation here....

...cific performance of the lease. We reverse the summary judgment insofar as it denied the claims for damages. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. NOTES [1] The statute states, in its entirety: 689.01 How real estate conveyed....

...ul bidder at the foreclosure sale, will own the property. This is sufficient to give MPI standing. As to the merits, MPI argues that the assignment is not valid because it was not signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses as is required by section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1999), our land conveyance statute. While there are no Florida cases addressing whether the equity of redemption is an interest in land covered by section 689.01, MPI has cited authority from other jurisdictions which support its argument....

...appeal. There is insufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the Zabalas have a valid deed to one of the condominiums. To transfer a property interest, a deed must be in writing and signed by the person conveying such interest. Fla. Stat. § 689.01 (1995)....

...an almost identical prior rental agreement and attorney's fees. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appellant's complaint on the grounds that the second lease agreement, being in excess of one year (two years), was unenforceable under Fla. Stat. § 689.01, F.S.A....

...renewal of the first lease. Cf., Kornblum v. Henry E. Mangels Company, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 16; Leibowitz v. Christo, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 692. *241 Further, we hold that the appellee is estopped to defeat the second lease agreement by asserting Section 689.01 because she and her deceased husband occupied the apartment for almost two years under the similar first rental agreement, making rental payments thereunder....

...We agree with the appellant that the District Court erred in holding Section 689.11, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional. The record, however, does support the finding of the trial judge that the deed was ineffectual, it being uncontroverted that the deed was signed by only one witness in contravention of Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1975), together with evidence that the husband had no actual intention to effectively convey the property to his wife....

...gh subscribed by only one of several witnesses prior to delivery." (emphasis supplied) Cf. Alexander, et al. v. Colston, 66 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1953). Appellee is estopped from contesting the validity of the deed on the basis that it did not comply with Section 689.01, Florida Statutes....

...As alleged in DeSilvio's motion for summary judgment, the Earnshaw deed contained the signature of only one subscribing witness. As to this deed, the summary judgment was also based on the undisputed fact that the deed was not signed by the requisite number of subscribing witnesses. See § 689.01, Fla....

...corporation's property to the corporation's shareholder. § 607.1405(2), Fla. Stat.; In re Miner, 185 B.R. 362, 366 (N.D.Fla.1995), aff'd, 83 F.3d 436 (11th Cir. 1996). In addition, an interest in real property cannot be conveyed other than by deed. § 689.01, Fla....

...of the lease. The case is remanded for a new trial on all issues framed by the pleadings. [1] REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Although the lease does not comply with § 689.01, Fla....

...ion. We do not read the agreements as having granted profits a prendre. In any event, even if the language could be construed to create a profit a prendre, the agreements were unwitnessed and, therefore, not executed with the formalities required by section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1981), for the conveyance of an interest in land....

...The petitioners then petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari to review and quash the order denying the motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Assuming all the facts stated in the counterclaim to be true, the respondent has not made out a case entitling him to the specific performance of his contract. Section 689.01 , Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., provides, in part, that "no estate or interest, either of freehold, or of term of more than one year * * * shall be assigned or surrendered unless it be by instrument signed in the presence of two subsc...

required to be witnessed under the provisions of F.S. 689.01 [F.S. A.], which governs the transfer of interests

...means of knowledge is at hand.'"). I disagree, and conclude that § 692.01 applies given the evidence in this record. First, the fact that the deed did not have PWC's seal does not negate the applicability of § 692.01. In relevant part, Fla. Stat. § 689.01 allows a corporation to convey property under seal or in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, and further states that conveyance may be made under § 689.01 or § 692.01. Here the deed was signed by two witnesses. But even if § 689.01's method is not available or somehow does not apply, § 692.01 is not limited to deeds; it includes any documents conveying an interest in land, so as long as a document conveying an interest in land is under seal, the statute is satisfied....

...xecuted the mortgage can not be enforced against the homestead in the absence of an estoppel. Estoppel is not here raised. See Perry v. Beckerman, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 860, 862 ; Article X, section 4, Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A.; .and section 689.01, Florida Statutes, 1955, F.S.A....

...Saccullo Irrevocable Trust for the benefit of Mark A. Saccullo.” For the most part, the deed conformed to the necessary formalities, and it was properly notarized and recorded in December 1998. There was just one glitch: the deed bore the signature of only one witness, not the two required by Fla. Stat. § 689.01....

... Case: 17-14546 Date Filed: 01/11/2019 Page: 5 of 15 government’s motion, Mark relied on Fla. Stat. § 95.231, which, in relevant part, states that [f]ive years after the recording of an instrument required to be executed in accordance with s. 689.01 ....

...answer that question, we look first to the text of § 95.231. Again, in relevant part, that statute provides that, absent exceptions that don’t apply here, “[f]ive years after the recording of an instrument required to be executed in accordance with s. 689.01 ....

...We first address Tunnage’s argument that the trial court erred by denying his pre-trial motion for summary judgment. Tunnage asserted in this motion for summary judgment that the deeds he gave Green could not convey title because they were not signed by two subscribing witnesses as required by Florida law. Florida Statutes section 689.01 (2005), provides that a deed transferring an interest in real property must be signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...ion, see Bay Island Towers, Inc. v. Bay Island-Siesta Ass'n, 316 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), were void because the written ballots of the property owners did not comply with the two-witness requirement of Florida's version of the Statute of Deeds, section 689.01, Florida Statutes (2000)....

...The association again appeals and we again reverse. It is clear that the deed restrictions of this type [2] are simply equitable *599 rights arising out of the contractual relationship between and among the property owners and emphatically do not constitute interests in real estate to which section 689.01 solely applies....

...[2] The appellees seem to claim that the rights of the association to enter upon a homeowner's property for enforcement purposes, which, in this case, were also explicitly contained in the original restrictions, are properly viewed separately from the restrictions themselves and qualify as "easements" to which section 689.01 may apply....

...Florida statutory law further provides that the assignment of an estate or interest in property for a term of more than one year may not be assigned unless by an instrument signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the assignor or by legal agent, or by operation of law. Florida Statute Section 689.01....

...rity. However, the corporation did not own the property in question. The owners of the property, the Steingolds, made no written memorandum or undertaking to encumber their property as security for the corporation’s indebtedness. See § 725.01 and § 689.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

..., was operating a restaurant on the property. Costilla claims that based on the facts as alleged in the complaint, Kostas, Inc., was essentially an assign or sublessee of Longo. See § 83.08(2). Costilla’s argument is without merit. “Pursuant to section 689.01, Florida Statutes [ (2010) ], an assignment or *319 sublease for a lease with a terra of more than one year must be in writing and signed by the party to be bound with two subscribing witnesses.” Sorrels v....

the presence of two subscribing witnesses. Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides in effect

...TRG contends on appeal that the trial court erred in granting final summary judgment in favor of Gravante for two reasons. TRG contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying TRG's reconsideration motion because the motion established that Form H had been, in fact, dated, and because section 689.01, Florida Statutes (2010), requiring transfers of real estate to be in writing and signed by the grantor in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, does not apply to a purchase and sale contract; therefore, the grounds upon which the trial court granted summary judgment are refuted....

...Bank of Orange City, 626 So.2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Gravante's motion for partial summary judgment was based on whether or not his signature on Form H was forged. Gravante did not raise in his motion that Form H was invalid because it was not dated or witnessed. In addition, because section 689.01 regulates the conveyance of real property and does not apply to documents such as Form H, which is a contract for purchase and sale and is not an instrument of conveyance of property, the statute does not apply....

...judgment. As a matter of law, the purported assignment does not appear invalid on its face. A beneficial interest is assignable, Preston v. City Nat. Bank of Miami, 294 So.2d 11 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), and the assignment meets the witness requirements of section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...he counterclaim and the third party complaint in the subsequent suit was proper. The plaintiff claimed an interest in real property but was unable to produce a writing to support said claimed interest. The dismissal of the complaint was proper under Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...eal property. Petitioner has presented no argument or evidence that she has an ownership interest in the real property, which is owned and titled in Defendant Barber’s name alone. An interest in real property cannot be conveyed other than by deed. § 689.01, Fla....

of subscribing witnesses in accordance with section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1991). We hold that there

...e to the bank. Respondent complied with the request. However, the lease which respondent executed was not enforceable because the building was owned by Bartholomew and his wife, but the lease was executed only by Bartholomew and did not conform with section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1989), as to the number of required witnesses....

...Success Academy, Inc., 453 So.2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Twenty-Four Collection, Inc. v. M. Weinbaum Construction, Inc., 427 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Rodriguez v. Gonzaga, 387 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Kendall East Estates, Inc. v. Banks, 386 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); § 689.01, Fla.Stat....

...Appellant argues, contrary to the trial court’s determination, that the lease agreement was signed by two subscribing witnesses. We agree and reverse the trial court’s order. Because our disposition of that issue is dispositive of this appeal, we refrain from addressing Appellant’s other points on appeal. Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, requires that an assignment of an interest of land for a term of more than one year be in writing and signed, by the party to be bound, in the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...Locklin, the sole owner and corporate officer of Appellant, was qualified to be a subscribing witness. Under Ross v. Richter, 187 So.2d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), Mr. Locklin is a qualified subscribing witness even though he is an officer of Appellant and was not disinterested. Based on the requirements of section 689.01, Florida Statutes, and the reasoning in Ross , we REVERSE the summary final judgment and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 689.01, Fla....

...successor in title. The written assignment (which is found to have been sufficiently argued below) was a valid transfer of an uncertain future interest in property, properly executed by the parties for valuable consideration, delivered and accepted. § 689.01, Fla.Stat....

...In 2008, Daniel executed a quit-claim deed purporting to transfer his interest in the property to Milea, as Trustee of the Milea Callaghan Revocable Trust. However, Mi-lea was the only witness on the deed, which was prepared by Daniel’s Illinois *1155 attorney. Thus, it was not sufficient to pass title. See § 689.01, Fla....

...between homestead property rights and the assignment of post-loss insurance benefits. The trial court found that assigned insurance benefits are “imbued with the same [homestead protections] as the property itself,” thereby requiring compliance with sections 689.01 and 689.111, Florida Statutes (2019), for proper sale, alienation or devise. Appellant raises several arguments on appeal. Finding merit in Appellant’s arguments that sections 689.01’s and 689.111’s homestead protections are inapplicable to an assignment of post-loss insurance benefits, we reverse. Background  In early 2019, Edwin and Milena Masabanda’s (“the Insureds”) real property sustained damage from a covered peril....

...and cannot be divested by a homeowner through an unsecured agreement.” Insurer further contended, “[d]espite the lack of a secured agreement, the alleged [AOB was] not a proper conveyance of homestead property” because it did not comply with sections 689.01 and 689.111, Florida Statutes (2019). In response, Appellant filed an amended memorandum of law. According to Appellant, Quiroga was distinguishable “because it involved a charging lien imposed on proceeds from an insurance policy [and] not, like here, a voluntary transfer of benefits on the part of the [I]nsured[s].” Additionally, Appellant contended that sections 689.01 and 689.111 had “nothing to do with the assignment of benefits provided to [Appellant] by the Insureds ....

...trial court stated that such insulation could be “stripped or avoided only by proper procedure to create a secured interest in the insurance proceeds in favor of [Appellant].” And, because the Insureds did not execute the AOB in the manner which sections 689.01 and 689.111 prescribe, the trial court found dismissal appropriate....

...l court had the benefit of the Citrus Contracting or Speed Dry decisions. Accordingly, because we find Speed Dry particularly persuasive, and because the former decisions are nonprecedential, we decline to follow those former decisions. B. Sections 689.01 and 689.111 Having determined that homestead exemptions have no application to the assignment of post-loss insurance benefits, we next address the applicability of sections 689.01 and 689.111, Florida Statutes (2019). Section 689.01 provides in pertinent part: No estate or interest of freehold, or for a of term of more than 1 year, or any uncertain interest of, in, or out of any messuages, lands, tenements, or hereditaments shall be create...

...making, granting, conveying, transferring, or releasing such estate, interest, or term of more than 1 year, or by the party’s lawfully authorized agent, unless by will and testament, or other testamentary appointment, duly made according to law .... § 689.01(1), Fla....

...occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.” Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984) (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 137 So. 157, 159 (Fla. 1931)). Here, section 689.01’s plain language indicates that the statute is connected to the transfer of real property, which—as noted in Speed Dry— is not part of an assignment of post-loss insurance benefits....

...intestacy” or “[r]eal property; land.” Hereditament, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). An assignment of insurance rights simply does not implicate a transfer of property by inheritance or intestacy or involve the transfer of real property or land. Thus, section 689.01, by its plain language, is inapplicable to the assignment of post-loss insurance benefits. Further, while a statute’s title alone is not determinative, Fitts v. Furst, 283 So. 3d 833, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), section 689.01’s title is “How real estate [is] conveyed.” § 689.01, Fla....

...[but is instead] an assignment of contract rights that places a third party in the shoes of the homeowner and in privity with the insurance company,” Speed Dry, 302 So. 3d at 466, section 689.111 is inapplicable. Thus, whatever infirmities may or may not have existed with Appellant’s compliance with sections 689.01 and 689.111, because the AOB did not involve a transfer of real property or of homestead realty, Appellant was not required to comply with such statutes as part of the assignment of benefits at issue. Conclusio...

...not to be treated as impediments to the assignment of post-loss insurance benefits. Because those homestead protections are inapplicable and do not involve a transfer of real property, we further hold that Appellant’s purported noncompliance with sections 689.01 and 689.111 was immaterial....

...Schueler argues that the purported conveyances from him to Franke and Salsbury were invalid because they failed to conform to the witness requirements of section 689.-01, Florida Statutes (1985), and because the doctrine of estoppel under Cox should not be used to circumvent those requirements. Section 689.01 requires that all deeds be signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...onvey to the husband her interest in the Orange Bowl property, as part of the consideration for conveyance to the wife of the husband’s interest in the Montclair Apartments. In response to the wife’s affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds, § 689.01, Fla.Stat....

premises and the lessee in receivership. F.S. Section 689.01, F.S.A., requires that an interest in land

...last and typically the notary stamp is applied after the notary signs. Additionally, Defendant signed the deed with the suspect notary expiration date as a subscribing witness. The signature of two subscribing witnesses is required on a real estate conveyance. § 689.01, Fla....

...ge was “fatally deficient” and “legally invalid on its face” because the notary had signed as a witness in violation of section 117.05(1), Florida Statutes (2024). Therefore, the mortgage lacked two valid subscribing witnesses as required by section 689.01, Florida Statutes (2024). The lender now appeals the judgment for the wife. The wife argues the lender failed to preserve the issues raised on appeal because it failed to file a timely motion for rehearing....

...4th DCA 1984). 3  Simply put, Florida law does not require homestead mortgages be witnessed by two subscribing individuals. The trial court erred in concluding the mortgage was invalid because it lacked two subscribing witnesses as required by section 689.01....

...convey the property to herself and appellant as tenants in common. The agreement then contains provisions not pertinent to this appeal, and is signed by both the husband and appellee. The trial court granted summary judgment based on its belief that section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1987), applies to the situation at hand and the agreement cannot be enforced because it was not executed with the formality required by that statute. The statute requires that any instrument creating an interest in real property must be signed “in the presence of two subscribing witnesses.” Id. We reverse. The trial court erred in applying section 689.01 to the facts of this case....

...We have previously held that a contract for sale of homestead property need not be executed with the formality of a deed required by the statute. Ford v. Barnes, 366 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The agreement in this case can be compared to a contract for sale for purposes of section 689.01....

...If the agreement is valid (which must be determined from further proceedings below), then appellee’s conveyance of the property to herself and appellant pursuant to the agreement will be the instrument creating an interest in the property in favor of appellant. That instrument will fall under the requirements of section 689.01. We note that appellant’s brief includes a discussion of the merits of some of appel-lee’s other affirmative defenses. We decline the invitation to consider arguments other than the application of section 689.01. We reverse based solely on the inapplicability of section 689.01 to the facts of this case and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion....

...JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012))); Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Diz, 253 So. 3d 705, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Standing to foreclose must be demonstrated with competent, substantial evidence at the time of filing the lawsuit.”); § 689.01(1), Fla....

...Matsushita as the standard for summary judgments in Florida, effective May 1, 2021). In Florida, real property may be conveyed only by a deed executed in the presence of two witnesses. See, e.g., Walker v. City of Jacksonville, 360 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); § 689.01(1), Fla....

...Corp., 403 So.2d 456, 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); and (b) the alleged contract was never reduced to writing and was barred by the statute of frauds. See Dorsey v. Behm, 356 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); De Lucca v. Flamingo Corp., 121 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); § 689.01, Fla.Stat....

...es rise to a basis for recovery. This fact was never in dispute. At trial, appellee’s representative testified that she had no written agreement with appellants regarding the payment of rent or indemnification for rent to Bressler’s. Pursuant to section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1993), an assignment or sublease for a lease with a term of more than one year must be in writing and signed by the party to be bound with two subscribing witnesses....

...In Florida, an estate or interest of freehold is validly created or conveyed by a deed when (a) the instrument is in writing, (b) signed by the party creating or conveying the estate or interest, (c) in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. Fla. Stat. § 689.01 ....

...The ap-pellee-Bank counters with the argument that the deed to the appellant was defective because it was neither signed in the presence of two witnesses nor did it have affixed the corporate seal. Hence, according to the Bank, the deed did not satisfy the formal requirements of either § 689.01 or § 692.01, F.S.1967, F.S.A....

...of knowledge is at hand.’ ”). I disagree, and conclude that § 692.01 applies given the evidence in this record. First, the fact that the deed did not have PWC’s seal does not negate the applicability of § 692.01. In relevant part, Fla. Stat. § 689.01 allows a corporation to convey property under seal or in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, and further states that conveyance may be made under § 689.01 or § 692.01. Here the deed was signed by two witnesses. But even if § 689.01’s method is not available or somehow does not apply, § 692.01 is not limited to deeds; it includes any documents conveying an interest in land, so as long as a document conveying an interest in land is under seal, the statute is satisfied....

...is stipulated in the deed he should do, even though he did not sign the deed." (quoting Silver Springs, O. & G. R. Co. v. Vanness, 34 So. 884, 887-88 (Fla. 1903))). The deed must only be signed by the seller in the presence of two witnesses. See § 689.01, Fla....

executed with the formality of a deed as required by § 689.01 . . . which . required the presence of two subscribing

not satisfy the Statute of Frauds. See Fla.Stat. § 689.01 (an interest in land for a term of more than one

...unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized. See also § 689.01, Fla....

...troduced in evidence. It has been represented to this Court at oral argument that this omission resulted from misplacement of the document at the time of trial. The evidence does not indicate that this document was signed or witnessed as required by Section 689.01, Fla.Stat....

...e State of Florida. “2. That the contract sued upon has been attached to the complaint and that the contract affirmatively shows on its face the signature of only one witness for the alleged purchaser and alleged seller. “3. That Florida Statute 689.01 requires that the contract for the sale of real property must be ‘signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses....

...* * * > » Although this may conflict with Radabaugh v. Ware, Fla.App.1970, 241 So. 2d 738 , we believe that the trial judge has incorrectly stated that a contract for the sale of real property to be enforceable must be executed with the formality required by F.S. § 689.01, F.S.A. for a conveyance of real property. In Zimmerman v. Diedrich, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 120 , the Supreme Court of Florida said, “We think that Sec. 689.01, supra, applies to conveyances as distinguished from contracts to convey * * And in that opinion the court held: >|< >[i >j< >|< “We conclude after an earnest effort to reconcile decisions with statutes and with each oth...

...In addition appellees have in their brief relied upon many cases holding that a judgment dismissing a complaint for specific performance is proper where the contract is for the sale of real property and the contract is not executed in conformity with F.S. § 689.01, F.S.A....

...These cases do not support a judgment dismissing an action for damages upon a breach of contract for the sale of real property where the contract is otherwise complete and lawful but does not have the requisite number of witnesses to conform to F.S. § 689.01, F.S.A....

...The lease was signed by the husband but was not signed by the wife. Failure of the wife to join and sign the lease made this ten year lease defective. See Richart v. Roper, 156 Fla. 822 , 25 So.2d 80, 81 . The lease was defective also because not witnessed as required by § 689.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

that it was not executed in compliance with section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1995). The court then determined

witnesses, in accord with the provisions of Section 689.-01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. When plaintiffs’

...stain her contention that the deed created an estate by entireties, since it appears, at least upon the present record, that the interlineation was made in the deed after the execution thereof and it does not presently appear that it was reexecuted. Section 689.01, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., provides: "No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than one year, or any uncertain interest of, in or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall be created, made, gran...

...e Petition Date. Id. Bankruptcy law, if the Debtor is determined to have had an interest in the Property on the Petition Date, governs whether the interest constitutes property of the estate. In re Daugherty, 261 B.R. 735, 738 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.2000). Section 689.01 of the Florida Statutes governs the conveyance of real property: No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any uncertain interest of, in or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall be...

...No seal shall be necessary to give validity to any instrument executed in conformity with this section. Corporations may convey in accordance with the provisions of this section or in accordance with the provisions of ss. 692.01 and 692.02. FLA. STAT. § 689.01 (1997)....

...Tobin, 89 Fla. 321, 104 So. 583, 584 (1925). The deed must be delivered to the grantee. McCoy v. Love, 382 So.2d 647, 649 (Fla.1979) ("Without delivery, nothing passes to the grantee."). Quit-Claim Deed 1 was executed in conformity with Florida Statute Section 689.01....

...It meets each of the Florida statutory and case law elements required for an effective conveyance of real property. It conveyed the Property from the Debtor to Kaye on January 9, 2008. Quit-Claim Deed II was executed in conformity with Florida Statute Section 689.01....

...It meets each of the Florida statutory and case law elements required for an effective conveyance of real property. It conveyed the Property from Kaye back to the Debtor on January 27, 2009. The recordation of a deed is not a prerequisite for an effective conveyance of real property. FLA. STAT. § 689.01; Sweat v....

...No cause exists for granting Coastal relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d)(1). Coastal's Motion is due to be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Coastal's Motion for Relief from Stay (Doc. No. 34) is hereby DENIED, without prejudice. NOTES [1] Florida Statute Section 689.01 was amended in 2008 to clarify certain terms....

...“(f) Nothing in the record shows that the deceased, William E. Cantor, at any time executed any instrument in writing creating, granting, or transferring any interest in said real property, certain or uncertain, to the Plaintiff, in the manner required by Section 689.01, Florida Statutes.” The main thrust of appellant’s argument is based upon the case of Tingle v....

McCORD, Judge. Burch appeals from an order dismissing her second amended complaint with preju *441 dice. The order was based upon the grounds that appellant failed to plead facts in the complaint negativing the application of Sections 689.01 and 83.04. Florida Statutes, to allegations in Counts I and II. We reverse. The trial judge was correct in ruling that § 689.01 controls the validity of the modification of the written lease agreement alleged in Count I, and that, in the absence of a showing of special circumstances, § 83.04 applied to Counts I and II regarding the alleged extension of the lease....

...er wanted this to be done,” granted an involuntary dismissal. Judgment was then entered invalidating the *676 April 8, 1997 deed to Marcela on the finding that the deed “was not executed according to the requirements of Florida Statutes sections 689.01 and 695.03(3).” Title to the property was quieted in Jaco- . bo. For the following reasons, we reverse. Section 689.01 of the Florida Statutes in general provides that creation or transfer of an interest in Florida real property must be in writing and signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party creating or transferring the interest....

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment declaring void a deed for lack of subscribing witnesses as required by section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1979)....