CopyCited 215 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 76 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 133, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4735, 2010 WL 743730
...agreements. Count VI is based on an oral agreement to
provide what in legal effect would be a payment and performance bond. The defendants do not contend
that such an agreement must be in writing to satisfy Florida’s statute of frauds, Fla. Stat. § 725.01.
14
It was PVC’s burden to convince the district court that it had jurisdiction
over the persons of the defendants....
CopyCited 101 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17273, 1998 WL 384781
...not meet the requirements of Florida Statute § 678.319, Florida's codification of the statute of frauds involving the sale of securities. However, FCOM argues that Florida's general statute of frauds not involving the sale of goods, Florida Statute § 725.01, was met....
CopyCited 93 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 69 A.L.R. 4th 895
...tiveness of the operation, 2) failed to obtain a truly informed consent, and 3) negligently performed the operation. While the district court found the summary judgment on the first claim proper in the absence of the written guarantee required under section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), it found genuine issues of material fact requiring jury resolution in the latter two claims....
CopyCited 89 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4301
...The same considerations which underlie statutes of frauds require that a revenue producing ordinance explicitly set forth restrictions on revenues it generates, where such restrictions are essential to its validity. As between private parties, a contract "that is not to be performed within the space of one year", Fla. Stat. § 725.01 (1973), or which is "for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more", Fla....
CopyCited 59 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for appellees. Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Two appeals have been consolidated. The primary issue in appeal No. 72-102 concerns the applicability of the statute of frauds provisions of § 725.01, Fla....
...ng in favor of Modern Fiber Glass and Slama on compensatory damages. VI. No error in order awarding new trial against Modern Fiber Glass and Slama in Appeal No. 72-103. The first issue we shall discuss is whether statutes of frauds, §§
672.201 and
725.01, may be avoided by a suit for fraud in the inducement....
...alleged nor the location or description given." Elsberry v. Sexton,
61 Fla. 162,
54 So. 592; Williams v. Faile, Fla.App. 1960,
118 So.2d 599; Neveils v. Thagard, Fla.App. 1962,
145 So.2d 495, 497. However, in the case sub judice, the requirements of §
725.01 (contract for more than one year) and §
672.201 (sale of goods for a price of $500.00 or more) have been satisfied, first by memoranda signed by the party against whom relief is sought, and second by part performance of the agreement [6] by the parties....
...Food Fair Stores Corporation, Fla.App. 1958,
100 So.2d 200; Brod v. Jernigan, Fla. App. 1966,
188 So.2d 575; Evans v. Gray, Fla.App. 1968,
215 So.2d 40. [6] To resolve the issue of whether the requirements of the statutes of frauds, §§
672.201 and
725.01, were met, we were required to characterize the relationship between the parties....
CopyCited 55 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22434, 1999 WL 181412
...... 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 him or her thereunto lawfully authorized." § 725.01, Fla....
...barred under Floridas Statute of Frauds Under well-settled Florida's Statute of Frauds bars the enforcement of an oral contract when the parties intended and contemplated that performance of the agreement would take longer than one year. Fla. Stat. § 725.01 (1993); Yates v....
...provided by the Agreement. Such an "agreement," to the extent that it is based on oral representations by AHSI personnel, would clearly constitute an oral "agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof." § 725.01, Fla....
...The Statute of Frauds makes clear that Plaintiffs' alleged oral modification is not enforceable "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." *1363 § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 55 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1444, 1991 WL 15124
...claims, asserting that the Plaintiff's claims rely on an exclusive territory agreement which, contrary to statutory requirements, is unwritten and is not susceptible of performance, nor intended to be performed, in less than one year. See Fla. Stat. § 725.01 (1988)....
CopyCited 53 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 4 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1335, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 3334, 8 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 281
...a third party on an account receivable sold by SBA to Venture Group. There is no evidence before me that SBA guaranteed any debt owed Venture Group. Florida's Statute of Frauds requires that such an obligation be in writing and signed by the debtor. § 725.01, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 48 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1353
...Manifestly, none of these situations is present in the case at bar. The plaintiffs are relying upon a mere oral promise to create the easement, which is clearly within the terms of the statute of frauds and thus cannot be enforced directly or indirectly. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A....
CopyCited 45 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln,
94 Fla. 1097 ,
115 So. 498 (1927); O'Neill v. Corporate Trustees, Inc.,
376 F.2d 818 (5th Cir.1967). The district court found that, even if the four letters could be considered a financing agreement, Florida Statutes Sec.
725.01, Florida's Statute of Frauds, renders it unenforceable as a "special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person." Section
725.01 requires that such an agreement or promise be "in writing and signed by the party to be charged." Moreover, to comply with the statute under Florida law, the writing must contain the essential terms of the agreement....
CopyCited 37 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20589, 1995 WL 762146
...Geodata Servs., Inc., supra,
547 So.2d at 924 (collecting cases). 62. As to the allegation that BKC had allowed Agad and Balagamwala to investigate and prepare for the development of "three other sites" (Cplt. ¶ 136), this claim is wholly unsupported and violates the Florida Statute of Frauds. Fla.Stat.Ann. §
725.01....
CopyCited 29 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...HENDRY, Judge. Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final summary judgment which held the plaintiff's cause of action, based upon an alleged oral contract, unenforceable by virtue of the statute of frauds [Fla. Stat. § 725.01, F.S.A.]....
CopyCited 26 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9444, 1992 WL 212021
...We believe Davis sufficiently alleged that the oral agreement with which M-G interfered was the one involving just Davis and his brother. Second, M-G asserted that the oral agreement with which it allegedly interfered was not an enforceable contract under the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyCited 26 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...e *427 chancellor that there was an agreement not to partition, either express or implied. In the last question posed by the plaintiffs it is contended that an oral agreement not to partition is not enforceable because of the Statute of Frauds, F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A....
CopyCited 23 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15734
...It reflected only the state of negotiations at that point, preliminary negotiations which never ripened into a formal agreement. Under these circumstances, the trial court was eminently correct in entering summary judgment for the appellee. Affirmed. NOTES [1] Codified under § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (1977). [2] § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 22 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86193, 2007 WL 4127628
...In Count V, Plaintiffs assert breach of contract. In Count VII, Plaintiffs seek a constructive trust and equitable lien. In Count VIII, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, asserting that the Purchase Contracts do not satisfy Florida's statute of frauds, Fla. Stat. § 725.01....
CopyCited 22 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28417, 2005 WL 1126660
...and to enter into a joint venture or other business relationship with MIN. [26] The Plaintiff moves to dismiss this claim on the ground that it is barred by the statute of frauds applicable to contracts not intended to be performed within one year. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: No action shall be brought ......
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1060
...There was little dispute that much of what the Rebouls say occurred, did. What was disputed is what interest in the corporation the Rebouls were to receive. The defendants contended that the agreement was that the Rebouls were to receive a forty percent interest in the corporation, precisely what they did receive. [2] Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), Florida's statute of frauds, provides in pertinent part: "No action shall be brought ......
...ndant's). [3] Finally, and again in a complete about-face from their earlier position, the Rebouls' counsel at oral argument advanced the theory that the agreement was for the sale of securities which is covered not by the general statute of frauds, Section 725.01, but rather by Section 678.319, Florida Statutes (1981), which was not, as they contend it was required to be, raised as an affirmative defense by the defendants....
...We think this admission accurately portrays the position of the parties throughout, and it was therefore unnecessary for the defendants to raise Section 678.319 as an affirmative defense. [4] The Rebouls' claim for breach of the oral agreement between them and the defendants, being unenforceable under Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), the judgment in favor of the Rebouls is reversed with directions to enter judgment for Khawly; the judgment in favor of Richard and Bodne is affirmed....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 16 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1626, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5852, 1990 WL 63031
...on behalf of Iglesias to defraud her and permit Iglesias to obtain the royalties." Complaint at P. 16. The court must assume that the facts as plaintiff has plead them constitute the truth, and therefore defendant's argument has no merit. E. STATUTE OF FRAUDS The Statute of Frauds, as codified by Florida Statutes § 725.01 (1989), bars actions on an oral "agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof," Fla.Stat. § 725.01 (1989), as well as those on a "special promise to answer for the debt ......
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2436
...3d DCA 1974); Holm v. Woodworth,
271 So.2d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Concerning the denial of appellants' motion for summary judgment, the trial court acted properly as, under the situation presented here, the statute of frauds is not a bar to Westfall's suit. Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), provides in pertinent part: No action shall be brought whereby ......
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 160 Fla. 421, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 762
...by the aid of legal presumption .or evidence of established customs. Rhode v. Gallat, supra. The basis for this ruling is that courts are not authorized to write contracts for litigants and supply material terms or provisions omitted by the parties. Section 725.01 F.S.A....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4907, 2007 WL 980720
...[9] Accordingly, the final judgment is AFFIRMED, and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for the assessment of attorney's fees to be paid in equal parts by de Vaux and de Vaux's counsel, Richard S. Johnson. BARFIELD and THOMAS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2005), provides, in pertinent part: No action shall be brought whereby to charge ....
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Mursam Shoe Corporation, 2 Cir., 1942,
127 F.2d 344 [145 A.L.R. 467]." The first count was a common count and the defendants' motion to dismiss was properly overruled. Appellant second amended count contains some ambiguities as to whether the suit is on a collateral promise within the scope of section
725.01, F.S., F.S.A., requiring an obligation to answer for the debt of another to be in writing or whether the count is in special assumpsit for labor and materials furnished by the plaintiffs to the defendant Construction Co....
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...turned in whole or in part on the evidence that he was in much better position to appraise than we are; even if there were some basis for disagreement, we do not feel justified to reverse him. As to the question whether the statute of frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01, applies to the formation of a joint venture to develop and sell real estate, it is fairly well settled that the statute does not present a barrier to an otherwise valid agreement....
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 187, 2013 WL 1235000, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 564
QUINCE, J. Florida’s Statute of Frauds provides that all contracts for the sale of land must be memorialized in a written document signed by the parties to the contract or their lawful representatives. See § 725.01, Fla....
...at 316 . As to the trial court’s conclusion that EB was entitled to the return of its escrow deposit, DK Arena argued in part that King’s agreement to hold the due diligence period in abeyance was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. See § 725.01, Fla....
...opinion and remand for consideration of any additional issues not addressed herein. The Statute of Frauds Initially, it is undisputed that as a contract for the sale of land, the agreement between the parties in this case falls within the purview of section
725.01, Florida Statutes (2004), commonly referred to as the “Statute of Frauds.” See Tanenbaum,
190 So.2d at 778 ....
...... 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. § 725.01, Fla....
...ntract extending the due diligence period until October 4, 2004. Under the Statute of Frauds, any modification to the contract was unenforceable unless memorialized in a written document signed by the parties or their authorized representatives. See § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13789, 2000 WL 1587754
...ed where the instrument itself does not provide sufficient insight into intent. Id. at 1197 (footnote and citations omitted). SG/SC contends that the parol evidence proffered by Centennial is barred by the parol evidence rule, the statute of frauds (§ 725.01, Fla.Stat.(1995)) and an integration clause contained in the contract....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14792, 1996 WL 566888
...her, agreement. (Exhibit E, p. 440). Even if the evidence somehow supported a finding of an agreement, the Court agrees with Miller that any separate, oral distributorship agreement would be unenforceable under Florida's Statute of Frauds, Fla.Stat. §
725.01 (1995). All Brand Importers, Inc., v. Tampa Crown Distributors, Inc.,
864 F.2d 748, 749 (11th Cir.1989) (holding that Section
725.01 "bars enforcement of an oral contract that was intended by [a distributor and its customer] to last longer than a year, even though the contract could have been terminated for cause within a year")....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4579, 1996 WL 220557
...Smith argues that the letter directly refers to Richardson's agreement on behalf of Royal Group that the latter would guaranty payments due Smith under the Covenant and Consultation Agreements, and, since the letter was signed by the company's attorney, the "signed writing or memorandum" requirement of section 725.01 is satisfied....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...cted for the charter with the Cleggs only and that they are responsible for the payment. The Cleggs also claim that if they made any agreement, it was an oral agreement to answer for the debt of the California parties. Because the Statute of Frauds (Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1983)) requires such an agreement to be in writing, the Cleggs claim the court erred in failing to invalidate it....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 65 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 674, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 15550, 2006 WL 1642222
...Hooters, which would allow “a party that has failed to file a postverdict motion . . .
[to] nonetheless raise such a claim on appeal, so long as that party filed a Rule
50(a) motion prior to the submission of the case to the jury.” Id. at 984 (citing
1
Fla. Stat. § 725.01, provides in relevant part: “[n]o action shall be brought ....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...n, namely one sounding solely in fraud. The appellee contends that the statute of frauds cannot be circumvented by suing for fraud when the action is predicated upon an oral agreement unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds, § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21273
...
680 F.2d 1338, 1339 (11th Cir.1982). 4 . We reject summarily two arguments the City makes in support of its position that the parties did not enter into a contract: (1) that the contract is not enforceable under the statute of frauds, Fla.Stat.Ann. §
725.01 (West Supp.1985), because the City signed no written contract for the sale of the land; and (2) that the district court erred in refusing to consider the deposi *1228 tion....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...The defendant sold the store in January 1963, and plaintiff continued to work for the new store owner and made no demand on the defendant for the bonus until after his employment by the defendant had terminated. The defendant, in addition, plead as a defense the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01, in that the alleged agreement was oral and was not to be performed within the period of one year....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...antum meruit respectively. The second amended complaint alleged the parol nature and terms of the agreement, the aforesaid two year period and full performance by the Plaintiff. The motion to dismiss set forth the defense of the Statute of Frauds, F.S. 725.01....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...s, without notice. Walker v. Brown, supra; 53 C.J.S. 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....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ccurred at any time after the date of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants concerning the plaintiff's remuneration." Thus, the trial judge concluded that the statute of frauds had no application sub judice. We disagree and reverse. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1975), the Statute of Frauds, provides in pertinent part that: "No action shall be brought ......
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 294458
...4th DCA 1996)). Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in this light, we conclude that they were sufficient to take this action outside of the statute of frauds and sufficient to state a cause of action for reformation. The statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes governs oral promises to repay the debts of another....
...the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person... 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[.] § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 37027
...With regard to the breach of contract claim, the record before us demonstrates a factual dispute as to whether the agreement at issue is one "that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof," so as to make applicable the provision of section 725.01, Florida Statutes, [1] that "no action shall be brought" unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the party to be charged....
...ges. Brooks filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that Collier was suing the *151 wrong defendant because his verbal agreement was with Jones Motor Company, not with Brooks, and asserting that any claims were barred by the Statute of Frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes....
...interpretations placed upon them by their respective jurisdictions, we find that we must reject Collier's arguments to the extent they rely on the doctrines of "part performance" and "full performance" as removing the agreement from the operation of section 725.01, Florida Statutes....
...are also in dispute). The parties have taken opposing positions regarding the time in which the agreement was to have been performed [19] and summary judgment *158 is precluded by this factual dispute, the resolution of which will determine whether section 725.01 bars Collier's damages claim for breach of contract....
...hether Collier did in fact fully perform his part of the agreement within one year. If the court does not find that the parties intended that Collier would, and also that Collier actually did, fully perform his part of the agreement within one year, section 725.01 bars any action to enforce the agreement....
...vidence showing that the parties did not intend that Collier would fully perform the agreement within one year, or that the contract was not fully performed within such time is immaterial to his right to enforce the terms of the agreement. NOTES [1] 725.01 Promise to pay another's debt, etc....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...ent in the ongoing real estate transaction and manifested their intent to guarantee the Bank's loan to Hillstrom and Larson. The statute of frauds requires a written contract guaranteeing the debt of another to be signed by the person to be charged. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...The appellee, in this court as well as in the court below, proceeds upon the assumption that an attorney employed by a party in litigation such as the instant case is, ipso facto, given carte blanche authority to execute a written agreement for the conveyance of property, thereby satisfying the statute of frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 156 Fla. 510, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 912
...390 ,
52 So. 13 . The appellee takes the rather odd position in its brief that “the contract is binding on the Defendant, owner of the property, if Mr. Adelsperger had not signed the contract at all,” and in support of it quotes the Statute of Frauds, Section
725.01, Florida Statutes, 1941, and F.S.A....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Asserting that Florida has no statute governing specifically the execution of antenuptial agreements, plaintiff claims that section 693.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., concerning release of dower, has no legal effect as to agreements entered into by unmarried women. He cites instead the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., with reference to its provision that no action shall be brought to charge any person upon an agreement made upon consideration of marriage unless the agreement or promise is in writing and signed by the party...
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 15635
...Exxon Co., U.S.A.,
493 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Nehleber v. Anzalone,
345 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Cross-Aero Corp. v. Cross-Aero Serv. Corp.,
326 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); (2) said settlement agreement was not barred by the statute of frauds [§
725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ss." The terms of the alleged contract were oral and the parties performed thereunder until 1955 when the appellant was discharged. Although the appellant devotes his entire argument to the misapplication by the lower court of the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., it is well to note that the final order of dismissal stated no grounds upon which the court felt the complaint was deficient....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...USF&G reasons that since the 1972 contract was an entirely new and unambiguous agreement of equal or greater dignity than the 1971 contract, a novation existed as a matter of law. Evans v. Borkowski,
139 So.2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). Further, USF&G argues that the statute of frauds, F.S.
725.01, bars Gulf Florida from establishing that USF&G guaranteed the performance of Chapman under the 1972 contract through oral testimony....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 14408, 2002 WL 1574994
...oduct line “for the life of the
product” should not have been barred by the Statute of Frauds. Under Florida law, an
oral contract is unenforceable when the contract could not be performed within one
year from the time it was made. FLA. STAT. § 725.01....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...*577 Eugene Charles Heiman and Walter M. Meginniss of Heiman & Crary, P.A., Stuart, for appellant. Larry Klein, of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, West Palm Beach, for appellee. WALDEN, Judge. Putting aside preamble, does the statute of frauds, F.S. 1969, sec. 725.01, F.S.A., bar a suit for damages upon an oral contract to loan money in return for a mortgage upon realty? The trial court determined that such contract was encompassed and controlled by the statute. Summary final judgment was thereupon entered for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse. We have not been shown and have not found a controlling Florida case precedent. The Statute of Frauds is set forth in F.S. 1969, sec. 725.01, F.S.A.: "725.01 Promise to pay another's debt, etc....
...[3] And we must record that some lien states would also find the statute of frauds applicable to an agreement to make a mortgage. However, their outcome is frequently helped or distinguished by a finding of fraud or part performance, features not here present. [4] Putting together F.S. 1969, sections
697.02 and
725.01, F.S.A., the meaning of terms already discussed, and Florida's court opinions concerning the quality, function, and application of mortgages, we opine flatly that the statute of frauds, F.S.
725.01, F.S.A., does not bar a suit for damages upon an oral agreement to execute and deliver a mortgage upon real estate....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...In their answer defendants denied the making of the promise to plaintiff and as an additional defense asserted that the promise was a collateral promise to pay the debt of another, was not in writing and therefore was barred by the Statute of Frauds. § 725.01, F.S., 1953, F.S.A....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 304, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 1177, 2015 WL 2458005
...However, the Fifth District granted a motion for rehearing en banc,
withdrew the panel opinion, and substituted an opinion in its place on November 8,
2013. Browning,
128 So. 3d at 145.
Regarding Browning’s claim for breach of an oral contract, the Fifth District
looked to the statute of frauds as stated in section
725.01, Florida Statutes, and the
“leading case interpreting this statute,” Yates v....
...II. ANALYSIS
In this Court, Browning argues that his oral agreement with Poirier to
equally share in the proceeds of any winning lottery tickets they purchased falls
outside the statute of frauds. We agree.2
Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as the statute of
frauds, provides the following:
No action shall be brought ....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 557589
...Because no final agreement was reached as to those essential terms, the entry of summary judgment in favor of Stafford was correct. Even if the parties had reached a meeting of the minds as to the essential terms, any such contract would have been unenforceable under Florida's statute of frauds, section 725.01 of the Florida Statutes (1999)....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 217043
...upon any contract for the sale of lands, ... or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, ... 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. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2388017
...services, that defendants breached contract by refusing to remit payment, and that company suffered damages). The General Magistrate further erred in concluding that Aspsoft's breach of contract claim was barred by Florida's Statute of Frauds. *769 Section 725.01 of the Florida Statutes (2007) sets forth Florida's Statute of Frauds as follows: 725.01....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9987
...g the verdict on three grounds: first, that the Florida Statute of Frauds prohibited an action based upon unwritten promises to pay the debts of third parties in the absence of any independent consideration running to the guarantor, citing Fla.Stat. § 725.01 (1981) and American Atlantic Lines v....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...ection
689.01 applies to conveyances, not contracts to convey. Kroner v. Esteves, Fla.App. 1971,
245 So.2d 141. Here we are concerned with a purchase agreement, not an actual conveyance. *206 Contracts for the sale of land fall within the purview of Section
725.01, F.S. 1969, F.S.A.: "
725.01 Promise to pay another's debt, etc....
...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 there -with or by some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized." (Emphasis supplied.) Section 725.01 does not require witnesses and by case law contracts to convey property need not be witnessed if the property is not 1) homestead, 2) separate property of a married woman or 3) relinquishment of dower....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...itle them to specific performance, the trial court erred in denying appellants the opportunity to litigate their damage claims before a jury. In order to obtain specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the statute of frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1979), requires that the contract satisfy two conditions....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3845, 1991 WL 59996
...[2] Apparently, a hearing was held on ANB's motion for attorney's fees. A transcript of the hearing is not contained in the record and it is thus not clear when the hearing was held. [3] Such was affirmatively stated in paragraph 5 of appellants' second amended counterclaim. [4] Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1985)....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...The amended complaint alleges, in our opinion, a service contract and not one regarding "goods." Notwithstanding, it seems clear to us that appellant, in count I, is alleging an executed contract. It is well-established law the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts, not executed contracts. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2587
...lorida Statutes § 607.051(2), does not allow for the enforcement of oral agreements for the subscription of shares and that the enforcement of Plaintiff's alleged oral contract would also be barred by the general statute of frauds, Florida Statutes § 725.01 et al....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 10253, 1991 WL 70880
...ld consent to the assignment of distribution rights. See Fla. StatAnn. §
563.022(5)(b)(7) (West Supp. 1990). All Brand removed the case to federal court and answered Geary’s complaint by asserting that Florida’s statute of frauds, Fla.Stat.Ann. §
725.01 (West 1988), precludes this cause of action and that retroactive application of the beer distribution statute would violate the Florida Constitution’s contract clause, 2 and the United States Constitution’s contract clause....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6372
...The appellant urges that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint for damages upon a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. The appellee urges that the complaint was properly dismissed because it showed upon its face that the action was barred by that portion of F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A., which provides: "No action shall be brought * * * upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some...
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 676, 1989 WL 1153
...ially turns on whether the district court properly held that the statute of frauds bars the enforcement of an alleged oral contract for the sole distributorship of the beer products of plaintiff. We hold that the Florida Statute of Frauds, Fla.Stat. § 725.01, bars enforcement of an oral contract that was intended by the parties to last longer than a year, even though the contract could have been terminated for cause within a year....
...Tampa Crown has filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion. The *750 Court will first address that portion of the motion relating to the counterclaim. All Brand first argues that the alleged oral contract is unenforceable under the statute of frauds, Fla.Stat. § 725.01, which requires that contracts that are not to be performed within one year be in writing to be enforceable....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...000 which the defendants accepted and retained. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the letter which is said to be the written contract with respect to the sale of land was insufficient to comply with the Statute of Frauds, Fla. Stat. § 725.01, F.S.A....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5906, 1990 WL 114376
...By legislative enactment, a properly executed written contract is a prerequisite to any action in certain transactions, to include "any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, or for any lease thereof for a period longer than 1 year ..." § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...However, in quantum meruit and quantum valebant, the cause of action accrued when the services have been performed or the property transferred. This was many years before the statute began to run in the instant case. As to the Statute of Frauds, F.S. § 725.01 F.S.A., provides inter alia that "No action shall be brought whereby to charge * * * any person * * * upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof" unless it is in writing....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 313529
...Further, he alleged that he suffered damages as a result of his termination. Under the statute of frauds, any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from its making must be reduced to writing in order to be enforceable. See Sanz v. R.T. Aerospace Corp.,
650 So.2d 1057, 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); §
725.01, Fla....
...hin the statute. See Hesston Corp. v. Roche,
599 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). The statute of frauds only applies to executory contracts, not to agreements that have been fully performed. Full performance takes the agreement beyond the operation of section
725.01....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...The defendant in a suit for specific performance appeals from a summary final decree for the plaintiff which directed the conveyance of certain real property. The appellant does not argue the propriety of the summary final decree but urges the unenforceability of the deposit receipt contract for the sale of the land because § 725.01 Fla....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1602, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2896, 1988 WL 68500
...nst the buyer. These documents together [2] also constitute a sufficient "note or memorandum" "in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith" of a "contract for the sale of lands" as to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes....
...ed something relating to the class of cases described in the statute, constitutes an explanation for the one-way requirement of the statute. In Williams v. Noel , at page 903, the court stated: Appellant's argument that the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01 was not complied with was without merit, because the party against whom the contract was sought to be enforced signed it....
...See also the discussion of the "contemporaneous instrument rule" in Popwell v. Abel,
226 So.2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Likewise, the "note or memorandum" required by the statute of frauds may consist of several written instruments signed by the party to be charged. [3] In relevant part, the Statute of Frauds (§
725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...The plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from a final judgment dismissing with prejudice his second amended complaint. This complaint and its predecessors were dismissed on motion of the defendant predicated upon the ground that the contract allegedly breached was rendered unenforceable by the Florida statute of frauds, F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A....
...50,
13 So.2d 612; Summerall v. Thoms,
3 Fla. 298. And the rule of the cases just cited is directly applicable here, because the original contract alleged has concededly been executed on both sides. *754 It follows that it was error to hold the present action barred by F.S. §
725.01, F.S.A., and that the judgment appealed from must be, and it is hereby, reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6964
...t at the Debtor's request. Stahlman contends that the Debtor subsequently promised to reimburse him. The Debtor denies that such a promise was ever made and contends that even if such promise had been given, it is unenforceable under the Fla. Stats. § 725.01 which provides that "no action shall be brought ....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 2973
...ntum meruit, the statute of limitations barred appellant's claims as untimely. We cannot agree with the trial judge's order insofar as it relates to the statute of frauds. The reason given by the trial court in concluding that the statute of frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), [1] barred Moneyhun's cause of action for breach of oral contract was that the statute requires the "fully performing party [to] complete his performance or have intended to complete his performance, within one year," but plaintiff's performance continued for a six-year period. We observe, however, that the statute of frauds only applies to executory contracts, not to agreements that have been fully performed. Full performance takes the agreement beyond the operation of section 725.01....
...The cause of action, as alleged in Count I, for breach of an oral contract is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for further proceedings. WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), provides, in part: No action shall be brought ......
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 354267
...On April 3, 2003, the trial court denied a motion by the School Board to consolidate all of these cases, noting that each of the other cases was "currently abated" except for mediation purposes. [8] Appellants' argument flies in the teeth of the Statute of Frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2001), which provides that "[n]o action shall be brought ....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 59487
...ute of frauds, serve to extend any of the provisions of the written agreement. Under the statute of frauds, any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from its making must be reduced to writing in order to be enforceable. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...tz as their agent. Each defendant *1355 moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of Monogram's claim because the alleged contract was not in writing and could not be performed in one year as required by section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1979), and (2) Berkowitz had no duty to maintain adequate insurance for Monogram....
...605 (1920); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hicks,
184 So.2d 685 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); 18 Fla.Jur. Insurance §§ 337-38 (1971); see §
627.401, Fla. Stat. (1979). Hence, the Statute of Frauds applied only if the alleged oral contract could not have been performed within one year. §
725.01, id....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2962, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17290, 1988 WL 214512
...Local 277, however, has raised two other defenses which would be available to it, if it is held to be the successor to Local 1306. First, it argues that whatever contract Local 1306 entered with the plaintiff is unenforceable as violative of the Statute of Frauds. See, e.g., § 725.01, Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ek a profit jointly without the existence between them of any actual partnership, corporation or other business entity. The plaintiff did not allege nor did the circumstances prove a joint venture. We conclude, therefore, that the statute of frauds (Section 725.01 Florida Statutes (1975) was a valid defense....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...In part, appellee, defendant below, argues that Count III was properly dismissed because it was based upon an alleged promise by the defendant to provide "long term, low interest financing" as described in paragraph 18 of the complaint. Appellee asserts that the "statute of frauds," § 725.01, Fla.Stats., precludes recovery because the alleged promise constituted an oral agreement performance of which was not limited to one year....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...as an affirmative defense, it would seem the better practice to treat the motion to dismiss filed herein as a motion for summary judgment and direct the trial court to grant the same perforce the statute. There is a marked distinction between the language used in F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A....
...t prerogative. Being persuaded that the decision hereing has the potential of frustrating the public policy expressed by the statute and is contrary to the rules of civil procedure and authorities cited herein, I respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A.: "No action shall be brought * * * upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, * * * unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brough...
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...it as a ground for the new trial. With reference to the sixth defense (that the first count is founded upon an oral contract not intended to be performed within one year from the date thereof, which contract was not in writing as required by law Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.), the appellant contends that the Statute of Frauds, requiring contracts "not to be performed within the space of one year" to be in writing, is not applicable in the instant case because, since death is uncer...
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...000. The prayer for specific performance was granted and the property conveyed to Hutchinson upon payment of $15,000 together with accrued interest. We reverse. Binninger argues (1) an oral agreement was never reached, and (2) the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1975), bars Hutchinson from relief....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...tous conspiracy to defraud the plaintiffs. 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....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 8 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1490, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4506, 1992 WL 80612
...written contract of employment, Hesston dropped its statute of frauds defense. The statute of frauds provides that "[n]o action be brought ... upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof... ." § 725.01 Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15722, 2011 WL 4578543
...the business premises of Five-Star Realty. Mr. Rowe, Ms. Rumbough, and Five-Star Realty took the position that Ms. Leahy-Fernandez and Mr. Fernandez sent them the $50,000 as a gift rather than as a loan. They also claimed that the Statute of Frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2004), barred Ms....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...It is of no import, and certainly not unusual, that the theory upon which the trial court correctly tried and resolved the question was expressly identified for the first time in written final judgment. As the third point on appeal, appellant claims that appellees' original action was barred by the statute of frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 454519
...harfside at Boca Pointe, Inc. and never in the name of Superior Bank. Thus, the subject matter of the Purchase Agreement was not the sale of real property or any interest therein, but rather the sale of an "intangible property right" not governed by section 725.01, Florida Statutes....
...hts in the real property. Superior could not have performed the Settlement Agreement or the Purchase Agreement without transferring its interest in the real property. Hence, the December 1992 Purchase Agreement appears to fall within the language of section 725.01, Florida Statutes, governing an agreement to sell an interest concerning real property. Section 725.01 provides: "No action shall be brought whereby to charge any ......
...or personal property is of no consequence to the outcome in this case. If Superior's interest is real property, the alleged oral modification to reduce the sale price from $3.1 million to $1.6 million sued upon is barred by the specific language of section 725.01....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 9001, 2000 WL 991690
...to discharge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person ... 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...." § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (1999). Neither party disputes that the language of paragraph nine falls within this portion of section 725.01, thus requiring Susco's signature....
...ph nine under the Statute of Frauds. Thus, the dispositive issue in this case is whether Susco's signature on the addendum was sufficient to allow the Plaintiff to enforce the obligations of paragraph nine against Susco in his personal capacity. See § 725.01, Fla....
...Although Susco's signature appears to be in his representative capacity only, that single signature, when considered with the language of paragraph nine, is sufficient to enforce the guaranty provision against him in his personal capacity. See id.; see also § 725.01....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 101216
...g, and that it be between the insured, the insurer, and the injured claimant."). But it is the legislature's prerogative to consider and act on such policy concerns; such policy matters are not within this court's province. In the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2002), the legislature has addressed the policy issues regarding the enforcement of certain oral promises....
...The agreement between Hazen and Allstate, however, does not fall within the scope of the statute of frauds. Although a superficial view of the matter might lead to the conclusion that Hazen's action seeks "to charge the defendant upon [a] special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person," § 725.01, a liability insurer's agreement with a third party to settle a claim against an insured does not constitute such a "special promise." This is so because "the consideration for the promise is in fact ....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 419140
..."Pursuant to the statute [of frauds], no action can be brought to enforce a contract for the sale of land unless the contract is in writing and signed by the party to be charged." Cavallaro v. Stratford Homes, Inc.,
784 So.2d 619, 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). See also §
725.01, Fla....
...Alvarez,
800 So.2d 280, 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied,
828 So.2d 384 (Fla.2002). Therefore, even if White had orally agreed to sell the real property to India America, the oral contract would have been unenforceable pursuant to Florida's statute of frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes (2004)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...We affirm the orders denying injunctive relief because the appellants failed to establish that a wrong has been done or will be done. See Marston v. Gainesville Sun Publishing Company,
314 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The dispositive hornbook issue is whether the Statute of Frauds, Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), [1] applies to litigation settlement agreements....
...hority that specifically exempts settlement agreements from its purview. It is not materially disputed that the settlement agreement was oral and that it included among its terms the transfer of property from defendants to plaintiff. By operation of Section 725.01, the agreement was unenforceable....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...2d DCA 1983); Dorsey v. Behm,
356 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Also any agreement or promise constituting a contract for the sale of an easement, or some memorandum thereof, must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged to be legally enforceable. §
725.01, Fla....
...Manifestly, none of these situations is present in the case at bar. The plaintiffs are relying upon a mere oral promise to create the easement, which is clearly within the terms of the statute of frauds and thus cannot be enforced directly or indirectly. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A....
...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....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2317291
.... . 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. § 725.01, Fla....
...his purpose, courts should be reluctant to take cases from its protection." Yates,
181 So. at 344. A core feature of the statute is that it applies only to agreements that are "not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof." §
725.01....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29467, 2009 WL 961135
...Timmons,
519 So.2d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). [42] See also University of Miami v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
353 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1236 (S.D.Fla.2005); Eclipse,
262 F.Supp.2d at 1351; Barnes,
932 F.Supp. at 1441 [43] Both sides also refer to Fla. Stat. §
725.01, which is the Florida's general Statute of Frauds governing oral contracts for the sale of lands and leases for periods of longer than 1 year, as well as for contracts that are not be performed within the space of 1 year....
...The oral contract at issue is not a contract for the sale of lands or for a lease between the Parties, it is a contract for the purchase of various assets. There is also a disputed issue of fact as to whether the agreement could be performed within a year. See Yates v. Ball,
132 Fla. 132,
181 So. 341, 344 (1938). Therefore, §
725.01 does not apply....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1877561
...After the written contract expired on October 3, 1990, due to Seagate's failure to timely obtain requisite funding, no written contract existed between Shore and Seagate for the sale of the Hotel and Beach Club. The statute of frauds requires a written contract for the sale of real estate. See § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13214, 2002 WL 31039451
...One or more of these statutes would bar Conner's claims depending on how one characterizes the transaction. Similarly, if Conner's business arrangement with Disney is construed as involving the sale or lease of real property, it is clear that it was intended to last more than one year, and is therefore barred under section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1996)....
...5th DCA 1994) (citing Evans v. Parker,
440 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)). Conner asserts that its performance could have been completed within one year, and, thus, its actions are not barred by the statute of frauds. That argument fails because with the exception of section
725.01, the requirement of a written agreement is based on the price of the goods sold or leased, not the time of performance. Only section
725.01 bars enforcement of an unwritten agreement if it cannot be performed within one year from the time the agreement was made....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 136208
...Wood, 14 Cal.App.4th 854, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 (1993). This contract and the parties' testimony show that such was not the case here. Because of the potential abuse in marital-type relationships, we find that such agreements must be in writing. The Statute of Frauds (section 725.01, Florida Statutes) requires that contracts made upon consideration of marriage must be in writing....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20674
...underground service agreed to be installed until after January 15, 1975. Florida Power answered, alleged certain affirmative defenses, and moved for summary judgment on the following four grounds: (1) This action was barred by the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1977), because the alleged contract was not to be performed within one year and was not in writing signed by Florida Power....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 192991
...Judge Cowart's analysis in Tortoise Island which excluded the possibility of an easement arising in that case, justified the narrowing of circumstances from which an easement could arise, absent a writing, to those which could satisfy the statute of frauds. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...1972,
266 So.2d 183; Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Wilson, Fla.App. 1968,
210 So.2d 761; Fla. Stat. § 673.416, F.S.A. Nor does such language meet the requirement that a promise to pay a debt be expressed in a clear, unequivocal writing which is mandated by the Statute of Frauds, Fla. Stat. §
725.01, F.S.A....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 481, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12093
...Similarly without merit is Resorts' contention that the trial court erred by admitting evidence which established the existence of an oral contract for a financial guarantee. It is true that a promise made directly to a creditor to pay the debts of some third party falls within the statute of frauds. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19645
...intiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Before VANCE, HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. HATCHETT, Circuit Judge: 1 This appeal, in a diversity action, requires application of Fla.Stat. § 725.01 to an indemnification contract which required written notice for termination....
...oral agreement notwithstanding the clause in the indemnity agreement requiring notice of termination to be in writing. Our task, then, in construing Florida law is to decide whether an indemnification contract required to be in writing by Fla.Stat. § 725.01 6 to be enforceable can be terminated by an oral agreement, despite a provision in the contract which requires written notice to the surety in order to properly terminate....
...26 In an effort to surmount the predictable outcome in light of Cahill and Canada, F&D submits the argument that the Florida Statute of Frauds would be frustrated if the Stringers were allowed to circumvent the provisions of the indemnification agreement. Under Fla.Stat. § 725.01, contracts of indemnity containing promises to answer for the debt or default of another, such as the one here, come within the realm of the statute....
...would terminate the indemnification contract in a manner other than in writing. It is with the legality of this alleged oral agreement that we are predominately concerned, not the terms of the written contract which by its very nature is required by section 725.01 to be in writing to be enforceable....
...A default judgment had previously been entered against Tom Murphy Construction Company, Inc This case was not disposed of in the district court on a motion for summary judgment. Because of the limited nature of the trial, however, we treat the disposition as though it were handled in summary judgment fashion. 6 Fla.Stat. § 725.01 provides, in pertinent part: No action shall be brought ......
...policy provision specifying method of cancellation). Accord, Midstate Hauling Co. v. Reliable Ins. Co.,
437 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1971) 8 No Florida case has directly addressed the question of whether an agreement required to be in writing by Fla.Stat. §
725.01 to be enforceable can be terminated by a subsequent oral agreement....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1952 Fla. LEXIS 1139
...the alleged contract, and it appearing to the Court that this makes the time of performance beyond the period of one year and therefore places the alleged contract upon which plaintiff bases his cause of action within the statute of frauds, to-wit, Section 725.01, F.S.A., and the Court being advised in the premises, it is, upon consideration thereof, "Ordered and Adjudged that defendant's Demurrer and motion to strike be and the same are hereby granted, and it appearing to the Court that the pl...
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Plaintiff then brought this suit for damages, alleging the receipt to be a contract. The defendant answered with a denial and the affirmative defense that the parties had entered into negotiations for a contract but had never entered into a contract. The Statute of Frauds (F.S.A., Section 725.01, F.S.A.) was not raised in the answer as an affirmative defense....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5493462, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15627
...Dynamics Aviation Servs. Corp.,
984 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (noting that Florida Arbitration Act does not require a written arbitration agreement to be signed *336 to be enforceable). Unlike documents that fall within the statute of frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes (2011), the Florida Arbitration Act, section
682.02, Florida Statutes (2012), does not require the party to be charged to sign an arbitration agreement....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 178652
...William R. Johnson appeals from an order dismissing with prejudice his complaint against appellees. He contends that the trial court incorrectly determined that his suit for breach of an oral employment contract was barred by the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes....
...nefits due him under the contract as a result of his work-related disability. Appellant's third effort to state a cause of action was met with a motion to dismiss, which asserted that any action upon the contract was barred by the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...In the present case the defendants state that there was fraud because the parties had a contract which provided that a warranty deed would be given for the entire piece of property. This contract is attached to the pleadings and is not signed by the vendor as is required by Fla. Stat., § 725.01, F.S.A....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31204, 2007 WL 1119192
...Simonton found that the alleged oral agreements as to both new product (A-stock) and old product (B-stock) were unenforceable pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. She found that of the two potentially applicable Florida Statutes of Frauds, Fla. Stat. §
725.01, [2] the general *1193 statute, and §
672.201, [3] which governs oral contracts for sale of goods, §
725.01 controlled. In making this finding, she relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent applying §
725.01 and determining that oral distributorship agreements intended to last for more than one year, such as those at issue here, are not enforceable. See All Brand Importers v. Tampa Crown Distrib. Inc.,
864 F.2d 748 (11th Cir.1989) (affirming grant of summary judgment on counterclaim under §
725.01 on the ground that oral exclusive distributorship contract was perpetual). See also Anthony Distrib., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.,
941 F.Supp. 1567, 1574 (M.D.Fla.1996) (applying §
725.01 to find that alleged oral distributorship agreement not supported by writing unenforceable). Florida state court cases considering this issue have also applied §
725.01 to like factual scenarios. See, e.g., Coleman Co. v. Cargil Int'l Corp.
731 So.2d 2 (Fla.3d Dist. Ct.App.1998) (finding that oral distributorship agreement was unenforceable pursuant to statute of frauds, relying on both §§
725.01 and
672.201 in so finding.). After finding that §
725.01 governed Topp's claims, Judge Simonton then determined that none of the writings presented by Topp satisfy the Statute of Frauds because they lack the essential terms of the agreements: duration, quantity, price and geographic territory....
...The Court adopts the R & R's analysis and agrees that Topp's breach of oral agreement claims, with respect to both A-stock and B-stock, are barred by the Statute of Frauds. To the extent Topp objects to the R & R on the grounds that §
672.201 rather than §
725.01 applies, the objection is overruled....
...er, the facts of this case lend themselves to establishing, if anything, an exclusive distribution agreement rather than an oral contract for a sale of particular goods. Therefore, the Court finds persuasive, as Judge Simonton did, case law applying § 725.01 to such agreements....
...torship agreement rather than a contract for a sale of goods. Second, assuming arguendo that "all" is a sufficient quantity term under §
672.306, Topp has still not proffered any writings that speak to duration, price or subject matter, which under §
725.01, are key terms needed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds....
...of whether the alleged oral distribution agreement for A-Stock is enforceable. The writings relied upon by Topp are insufficient to remove the oral agreement from either of the two potentially applicable Florida Statutes of Frauds, i.e., Fla. Stat. §
725.01, the general statute, or §
672.201, governing oral contracts for the sale of goods....
...ca. It is also undisputed that after December 31, 1995, there was at no time a written contract between the parties concerning the distribution of A-Stock cordless telephones in Latin America. [7] a. The Florida General Statute of Frauds, Fla. Stat. §
725.01 Applies To The Alleged Oral Exclusive Distribution Agreement Between The Parties Regarding A-Stock Initially, the parties dispute which Florida statute this Court should apply to determine whether the oral agreements at issue are enforceable pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. Uniden America contends that Fla. Stat. §
725.01, the Florida general Statute of Frauds, should apply. [8] Topp contends that Fla. Stat. §
672.201, the Florida Statute of Frauds regarding contracts for a specific sale of goods, should apply. [9] *1209 The undersigned finds that §
725.01, and not §
672.201, should control. In making this finding, the undersigned relies on Eleventh Circuit precedent which has applied §
725.01 applies to determine whether the oral distributorship agreements intended to last for more than one year are enforceable....
...ducts, as long as the defendant's performance was satisfactory, and that the plaintiff had breached the exclusive distributorship agreement. Id. at 749. The District Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim under § 725.01 on the ground that the oral exclusive distributorship contract was perpetual. Id. at 750-51. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the reasons set forth in the District Court's ordered, and specifically found that § 725.01 barred enforcement of the oral contract providing that the defendant would be the sole distributor for the plaintiff's products because the contract was intended to last longer than one year, even though the contract could have been terminated for cause within one year. Id. at 749. Other Federal Courts in this Circuit which have construed this issue have also applied § 725.01 to factual situations similar to the facts here....
...American Hydro-Surgical Instruments., Inc.,
262 F.Supp.2d 1334, 1344-45 (S.D.Fla.1999) (where the plaintiffs alleged that they were orally promised a long-term perpetually renewing distribution agreement, instead of the specific two-year term stated in the written agreement between the parties, the District Court applied §
725.01 to find that the alleged oral agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it was not supported by a writing), aff'd w/o op.,
235 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir.2000); Anthony Distrib., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.,
941 F.Supp. 1567, 1574 (M.D.Fla.1996) (where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant orally promised the defendant a distributorship for Molson beer, the District Court applied §
725.01 to find that the alleged oral agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it was not supported by a writing); accord Marcus v. Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.,
441 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1232 (S.D.Fla.2006) (the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, relying on §
725.01, to find that the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of an oral agreement to share attorney's fees, which was not to be performed within one year). Florida state courts which have construed this issue have also applied §
725.01 to similar factual situations. For example, in Chong v. Milano,
623 So.2d 536 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1993), the appellate court, relying on §
725.01, found that the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of an oral agreement to own and operate a recreational vehicle dealership which was to last forever....
...aintiff, based on an oral agreement that the parties would obligate themselves to contribute capital to a new business and to pay the losses of that business, and also to share in the profits of the business. The appellate court reversed, relying on § 725.01, finding that the oral agreement, which was to continue indefinitely, was unenforceable pursuant to the Statute of Frauds....
...1999), the plaintiff, a distributor, sued the defendant, a manufacturer of camping supplies, for an alleged breach of the parties' oral distribution agreement. The trial court entered judgments for the plaintiff after a jury verdict. The appellate court, relying on both §
725.01 and §
672.201(1), reversed the judgment, finding that the oral distributorship contract was for a period of more than one year, and was therefore unenforceable pursuant to the Statute of Frauds.
731 So.2d at 3. Under §
725.01, for a writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, it must contain all essential terms of the agreement, for example, duration, quantity, price, and geographic territory....
...The offer letter was signed by the defendant, one of the six partners who owned the center, with the consent of the other five partners. The plaintiff subsequently sued for breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant, relying on § 725.01, finding that the offer letter was not sufficiently detailed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds....
...a written contract guaranteeing debt of another to be signed by person to be charged, the writing must contain the essential terms of the transaction). Moreover, the undersigned finds unsupported Topp's assertion that Fla. Stat. §
672.201, and not §
725.01, controls its indefinite oral exclusive distributorship claim....
...The plaintiff then sued the defendant for contractual indemnity, based upon the terms and conditions of purchase which appeared on the reverse side of a purchase order that the plaintiffs insured routinely used to purchase candle holders from the defendant. The defendant, relying on §
725.01, moved for summary judgment alleging that the contract was unenforceable because the defendant had not signed it and it was a promise to indemnify the plaintiffs insured. The plaintiff asserted that §
672.201 should apply because the alleged agreement was a contract for the sale of goods. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that §
725.01 barred the plaintiffs claim for indemnification. Id. at 244. The appellate court reversed, finding that the contract in question was for the sale of goods, so that §
672.201, not §
725.01, applied....
...f a written contract for the sale of goods. Unlike the instant case, American Zurich did not involve a claim for breach of an alleged perpetual oral exclusive distributorship agreement, which both the Federal and Florida courts have considered under § 725.01....
...ntains no writing containing a quantity term, and no relevant writing signed by both parties. Thus, Topp's reliance on Riegel is misplaced, and under the holding of Riegel, the writings put forward by Topp are insufficient under either §
672.201 or §
725.01....
...uds provision Plaintiff's oral contract claims are barred ( infra at n. 4), and (2) Plaintiff's admission that the result under both Florida and Texas UCC law would likely be the same, the Court finds that this issue is rendered moot. [2] Fla. Stat. § 725.01 states, in pertinent part: No action shall be brought ......
...writing upon the other party's breach or upon twelve months written notice (DE # 103 at 3, ¶ 8; DE # 134 at 5, ¶ 9). This agreement lapsed, pursuant to its terms, on November 30, 1999 (DE # 103 at 4, ¶ 11; DE # 134 at 5-6, ¶ 10). [8] Fla. Stat. § 725.01 states, in pertinent part: No action shall be brought ......
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 355895
...forcement of the agreement between itself and Bank because its full performance under the contract (i.e., payment of the Delta judgment) removes this case from the applicability of the statute. J Square argues that the traditional Statute of Frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes, does not bar enforcement of an oral agreement where there has been full performance by one party and acceptance by the other party....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Dansyear, in the amount of $12,000 in his action to recover on an alleged debt against the appellant, South Florida Apartment Association, Inc. The appellant assigns as error the trial court finding in favor of the plaintiff and contends that the action herein is barred by the statute of frauds. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1975)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 160 Fla. 664, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 828
...Sherwood, was without authority to make any contract other than in the written form; that appellee had ample time to read and inform himself of the contents of the lease and also that the relief could not be granted because of the statute of frauds. Section 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
..., but, if necessary, would later conduct further proceedings. Neither party objected to this procedure. Thereafter, the court entered final judgment in favor of appellees, determining that the oral contract was in violation of the statute of frauds. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 890209
...Unfortunately for the Whitesides, the access issue was resolved by the parties based upon what appears to have been an oral promise by Dupont to allow access across his land. Such an oral promise cannot form the basis for an enforceable easement because of the Statute of Frauds. See § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16684, 1996 WL 562068
...Doc. 54 at 14-15. Cadle contends that TLZ is not entitled to specific performance against Cadle because, among other reasons, there was no "deed in lieu of foreclosure" agreement; and the proposal did not satisfy Florida's Statute of Frauds, Fla.Stat. § 725.01 and is therefore unenforceable....
...There being no genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of the agreement, summary judgment on the issue of specific performance is warranted. (2) Florida's Statute of Frauds Assuming arguendo that a contract did exist, Cadle's second basis for summary judgment is that Florida's Statute of Frauds, Fla.Stat. § 725.01, bars TLZ's specific performance action....
...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 him thereunto lawfully authorized. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 725.01 (West 1988)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31114679
...ract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, or for any lease thereof for a period of longer than 1 year ...'" Coral Way Properties, Ltd. v. Roses,
565 So.2d 372, 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); §
725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...to AAP. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to rule as a matter of law on the motion for directed verdict that the statute of frauds barred enforcement of the fifteen year oral agreement. Florida's statute of frauds is codified at section 725.01, Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part: No action shall be brought ......
...year. In the instant case there is no question as to the duration of performance, as Schwarz himself testified that the contract's duration was fifteen (15) years. An oral contract with a length of fifteen (15) years falls squarely within the bar of section 725.01....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22400487
...Florida's statute of frauds provides in relevant part: No action shall be brought ... upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, ... unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, ... shall be in writing.... § 725.01, Fla....
...On remand, the finder of fact must determine, "from the object to be accomplished" by the agreement and the "surrounding circumstances," whether the parties intended that the agreement was not to be performed within the space of one year. See Yates,
181 So. at 344; see also §
725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39186, 2007 WL 1492889
...Frauds. In Florida, the statute dictates that "[n]o action shall be brought . . . upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, . . . unless the agreement or promise . . . [is] in writing. . . ." § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...As such, there was clearly evidence in support of the trial court's finding in this regard. We find the evidence to be sufficient. Lastly, defendants argue that the plaintiff's claim based on an employment contract was within the Statute of Frauds as provided in F.S. § 725.01....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 577
...f the services, support and consortium of her husband. Mouat and the Hospital filed motions for summary judgment as to Counts III, IV, VII and VIII of the complaint (the alleged *96 breach of implied contract and warranty counts) on the grounds that Section 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...ted this when she was asked: "Q. Now one of the things, Mrs. O'Shea, when he came down in June, before your marriage, was one of the things that you wanted, too, was that he would not travel on his job, and work here locally? "A. That is right." [6] Section 725.01, F.S....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...On this appeal, appellant's basic contention is that the plaintiffs have improperly used the vehicle of a declaratory judgment to establish and enforce the terms of a claimed oral agreement in face of the fact that the oral agreement is barred by the statute of frauds, § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1958 Fla. LEXIS 1468
...Contracts to make a will devising real estate, such as the one involved here, are considered to be in the same class as parol agreements for the sale of lands and are clearly condemned by the Statute of Frauds. Battle v. Butler, 1939,
138 Fla. 392 ,
189 So. 846 ; F.S. §
725.01, F.S.A....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5923
...ng or at trial that § 731.051, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., is inapplicable by showing circumstances which would create an issue as to an exception to the statute. Appellant equates the provisions of the statute to various sections of the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 9000
...Plaintiff-appellant appeals from an order granting defendant's motion to dismiss appellant's third amended complaint with prejudice. The motion to dismiss was based on the grounds that (1) the action was barred by the statute of frauds [Fla. Stat. § 725.01, F.S.A.], and (2) the complaint fails to state a cause of action because the terms of the alleged contract as set forth in the complaint are incomplete, indefinite and uncertain....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 156737
...have continued their factoring relationships with Bridgeport, generating fees for which Bridgeport refused to pay commissions. Bridgeport moved to dismiss Fresh Capital's second amended complaint on the ground that it violated the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2001)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14653
...The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for the entry of a judgment in accordance herewith. On remand the trial court, in its discretion, may take further evidence touching upon the issue of damages as it deems necessary or desirable. Reversed and remanded. WALDEN, C.J., and CROSS, J., concur. NOTES [1] Fla. Stat. § 725.01 (1973).
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1896, 1989 WL 17039
...When the parties intend that their negotiations be reduced to a formal writing, there is no binding contract until the writing is executed. Mann v. Thompson,
100 So.2d 634, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Further, any express contract claim is barred by Florida's statute of frauds, Section
725.01, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...rocedure in obtaining her consent, and (3) negligently performed the procedure. *1300 From a summary judgment entered in the hospital's favor on all three counts, the Valcins appeal. I. We affirm the judgment entered on the breach of warranty count. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), effective May 20, 1975, provides: "No action shall be brought ......
...ting and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized." Because it is undisputed that the alleged warranty that the sterilization would be one hundred per cent effective was not in writing, Section 725.01 clearly bars this claim....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Laragione, Fla. App.2d, 1964,
170 So.2d 69, this court stated: "Defenses # 3 and # 5 contend that, since this estate consists of a large amount of real property, the enforcing of this alleged oral agreement would be violative of Fla. Stat., Secs.
689.01 and
725.01, F.S.A., which require conveyances or contracts to convey realty to be in writing....
...ng or at trial that § 731.051, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., is inapplicable by showing circumstances which would create an issue as to an exception to the statute. Appellant equates the provisions of the statute to various sections of the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23506
...From the outset he maintained that the lease had not been renewed; the tenant took the opposite position. As indicated, the trial court ruled for the tenant, finding sufficient part performance to remove the parties' oral agreement from the operative effect of the statute of frauds. Florida's statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), provides that an action may not be brought on a contract for the lease of real property for a period longer than one year unless the contract, or a memorandum thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 712696
...price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought...."). [3] § 725.01 Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 635086
...hereof, ... 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 him thereunto lawfully authorized. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23473
...Broad Street National Bank, 32 N.J. 461, 161 A.2d 247 (1960). The Statute of Frauds requires that a contract for the sale of land be proved by a written memorandum that contains all the essential terms of the sale and that is signed by the parties to be charged. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida
...ed for the following reasons: (a) It was given without consideration several months after the alleged loan it presumably sought to secure. That "loan" was made pursuant to an oral agreement and is therefore unenforceable under Florida law. Fla.Stat. 725.01 (1985)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1517827
...Trattmann's connection to the property was nothing more than bare legal title. IV. The trial court also erred in determining that Mr. Key's purchase-money resulting trust claimin contradistinction to his claim based on an oral contract for the purchase of landwas barred by the statute of frauds. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2003), provides: No action shall be brought ....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...Appellees have taken this rule and have stretched it to cover the situation sub judice in which the writing does not supply an essential element of the Holiday lease but instead would create an entirely new obligation, one to which the parties never evidenced their assent as required by the Statute of Frauds. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1977)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 77
...This action seeks to recover some $3,465.00 under this "guarantee" agreement. *215 Upon owner's motion, the trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint on two theories. First, the court held that enforcement of the contract was barred by the general Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, F.S....
...Alternatively, the court held that such oral guarantee is unenforceable under the "Statute of Frauds" provision of the Uniform Commercial Code, §
672.201, F.S. 1973, in that it is an oral contract for the sale of goods in excess of $500. We cannot agree with either theory. As to the general Statute of Frauds, §
725.01, supra, we hold that the owner's oral promise in this case is not within the purview thereof....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8795
...ich is clearly within the Statute of Frauds. We cannot agree. In essence, the instant case consists of an action to recover monies earned pursuant to written settlement sheets. A memorandum of a contract required by the Statute of Frauds (Fla. Stat. § 725.01 F.S.A.) may consist of several writings containing evidence therein from which the whole contract may be made out....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 770517
...aimed. They point to a letter written to them by Berry which, arguably, together with a ledger and memoranda kept by Berry, would indicate that Berry intended to sell them some land, so as to satisfy the writing requirement of the statute of frauds. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 72743
...y of the new contract. S.N.W. Corporation v. Hauser,
461 So.2d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. denied,
471 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1985). The original agreement, if indeed there was an agreement, was not enforceable because it was not in writing as required by section
725.01, Florida Statutes, and none of the elements necessary to remove the alleged oral agreement from the Statute of Frauds were present....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 267457
...We agree with Chong, and reverse the final judgment. Milano and Chong entered into an oral agreement to own and operate a recreational vehicle dealership. At trial, Milano testified that the agreement was to last forever. Florida's statute of frauds, contained in section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part: No action shall be brought ......
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14128
...We hold that this argument is untenable upon this record. *88 The judgment upon the directed verdict is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] The parties agree that the trial court applied Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1977), which is: "No action shall be brought ......
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10922, 2005 WL 901037
...at 3.) Furthermore, no oral contract existed between BP and Mr. Cibran obligating BP to sell the BP Assets. In Florida, the statute of frauds bars an action on *1255 a contract for the sale of lands "or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them," Fla. Stat. § 725.01, or for personal property in excess of $5,000, id....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1248, 2009 WL 367769
...upon any contract for the sale of lands ... 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. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 6601316, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21770
...or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof ... 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.... § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...itional evidence to establish any oral direct supply agreement between plaintiff and defendant such as would render defendant a primary obligor on the rental contract. The only agreement testified to was one of guaranty. Under our statute of frauds, § 725.01, F.S.A., this purported agreement was required to be is writing to be enforceable against defendant-contractor....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...to that operation. In its petition, A-S argued that its program was not covered by Chapter 721 for 3 reasons: 1) its lack of time-share periods, Section
721.05(27); 2) of time-share units, Section
721.05(30); and 3) of accommodations or facilities, Section
725.01(1) and (16)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13911, 2012 WL 3587263
...lex, she would receive a 25% ownership interest in the company. LaRue commenced working at Kalex in February of 2006 and she was terminated in December of 2009. During her employment with Kalex, her annual salary increased from $140,000 to $180,000. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2010) (“the statute of frauds”), provides in pertinent part: No action shall be brought ......
...nd past one year. In reaching this conclusion, the Fourth District adopted the reasoning of All Brand Importers, Inc. v. Tampa Crown Distributors, Inc.,
864 F.2d 748, 749 (11th Cir. 1989), which held that “the Florida Statute of Frauds, Fla. Stat. §
725.01 , bars en- forcement of an oral contract that was intended by the parties to last longer than a year, even though the contract could have been terminated for cause within a year.” Similarly, the Fourth District found in Byam v....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11703, 2004 WL 1773534
..., for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the appellant's cause of action was barred by two-year statute of limitations, section
95.11(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2000); that the cause of action was barred by the Statute of Frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes (2000); and that the jury's award of damages was not sustained by the evidence....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 965
...s and profit. The Galluzzos, in turn, contended that they had an oral contract to purchase the property from Moraitis and counterclaimed for specific performance. In order to remove an oral contract for the sale of realty from the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1985), a purchaser must pay all or part of the consideration, enter into possession, and make valuable improvements on the property....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 164675
...Statute of Frauds had not been satisfied. The Statute of Frauds requires that "any contract for the sale of lands ... shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized." § 725.01 Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 754352
...ect of this appeal. An oral agreement between two or more persons to go into the business of buying and selling real estate as partners or as joint venturers and sharing profits and losses from it, is not within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1997), unless there is a provision for transfer of title to specific real property from one of the parties to another....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16682, 1996 WL 650933
...Hager claims that Savoca and RAVE, individually and jointly, caused him to relocate his radiology practice to the Venice/Englewood area in reliance on their intentional misrepresentations. RAVE and Savoca correctly point out that, under Florida's Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16078, 2009 WL 3446494
...pealed. II. The first question to be addressed is whether the trial court erred by holding the lease to be unenforceable because of the lack of witness signatures on the lease. The tenant maintains that the lease satisfies the statute of frauds, see § 725.01, Fla....
...een-page *179 lease which (a) spelled out the terms of the parties' agreement and (b) was intended to operate as a conveyance of an interest in the leased premises for ten years. The lease complies with the requirements of the statute of frauds. See § 725.01, Fla....
...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....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 143659
...f the above defendants. We affirm in part and reverse in part. First, the trial court properly entered a directed verdict for the defendants on the breach of contract action; plainly, the oral agreement sued upon was barred by the statute of frauds. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1230550
...The trial court advanced two reasons when ruling against Jorge and Felipe as to their claim for breach of the alleged oral agreement regarding Lots 2 and 3. First, we address the trial court's finding that the "statute of frauds requires such contracts to be in writing." Elsa relies on section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1991), [6] to support the trial court's finding that the oral agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Pursuant to section 725.01, an oral agreement to transfer an interest in land is unenforceable....
...convey an interest in real property; rather, the alleged oral agreement is an agreement to perform labor and services to improve real property. See Phillips v. Atwell,
76 Fla. 480,
80 So. 180 (1918); Tunno v. Robert,
16 Fla. 738 (Fla.1878). As such, section
725.01 is not applicable....
...[5] The final order is silent as to Lot 3. We assume that the trial court inadvertently failed to adjudicate the claim as to Lot 3. Because the parties presented the same arguments for both Lots 2 and 3, this Court's finding as to Lot 2 also applies to Lot 3. [6] Section 725.01 provides, in part, as follows: No action shall be brought ......
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10995, 1997 WL 251462
...hat the County had made an official determination as to whose proposal was the most advantageous to the County. The hearing was conducted on April 30, 1997. Count I Breach of Contract Coupling the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, FLA. STAT. § 725.01, with the requirements of the Sunshine law, FLA....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 599
...We address five issues on appeal. First, was there sufficient evidence to establish that there was an agreement for release of *354 the property from the judgment lien? Second, does an oral agreement for release of a judgment lien violate the Statute of Frauds, section 725.01; Florida Statutes (1983)? Third, do appellees have standing as third party beneficiaries to seek specific performance of appellants' agreement with the Kumicks, the sellers of the property? Fourth, did the trial court improperly rule o...
...Appellants' next argument is that an oral agreement for the release of a judgment lien is a contract for the sale of land or for an uncertain interest concerning lands. Appellants claim, therefore, that the agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1983)....
...See also DeBartlett v. DeWilson,
52 Fla. 497,
42 So. 189 (1906). Neither party argues that the release of the lien would transfer or convey title to the property. Accordingly, we find that the contract for release of the judgment lien was not unenforceable by reason of section
725.01....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Viva and Pino counterclaimed for declaratory relief, contending that under section
542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), [3] the purported assignment of Pino's agreement not to compete was invalid. Pino and Viva further contended that Pino's alleged oral consent to the assignment violated the Statute of Frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1985), because the assignment was not capable of performance within one year....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Both these cases involved a recorded plat describing the use for which the property in question was intended. No such plat was ever recorded herein. The chancellor found that the defendants had not satisfied the legal standards necessary to create an oral easement (by estoppel). Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides in part: "No action shall be brought * * * to charge * * * any * * * interest in or concerning [lands] * * * unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or m...
...an easement in land. It stated at page 851: * * * * * * "* * * The plaintiffs are relying upon a mere oral promise to create the easement, which is clearly within the terms of the statute of frauds and thus cannot be enforced directly or indirectly. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A....
...He cannot be reversed unless it is made to appear that his findings were clearly erroneous. This has not been done. Defendants also say error was committed by the chancellor's ruling that this oral claim of an easement in land was barred by the Statute of Frauds. There is authority for the chancellor's ruling. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Canell v....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2006 WL 2129630
...is undisputed that the alleged fee-sharing agreement was not reduced to writing; (2) it is undisputed that the alleged fee-sharing agreement was not communicated to the client (Mr. Jacobson); and (3) the claims at issue are barred by Florida Statute Section 725.01 [statute of frauds], due to the undisputed fact that the alleged fee-sharing agreement relating to Plaintiff's participation in the legal representation of Mr....
...*1232 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 Fla. Stat. § 725.01. Florida statute 725.01 expressly requires that all actions to enforce agreements not to be performed within one year, be based on a written statement or memorandum, signed by the party to be charged....
...he legal representation of Mr. Jacobson's case in the Middle District of Florida. [8] Therefore, because the alleged oral agreement was intended to last for more than one year, the Court finds that the agreement at issue is barred by Florida Statute Section 725.01 [the statute of frauds]....
...Furthermore, due to the undisputed fact that the agreement was intended to last for more than one year, the alleged fee-sharing agreement relating to Plaintiff's participation in the legal representation of Mr. Jacobson's case, is barred by Florida Statute Section 725.01 [statute of frauds]....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 421154
...cation of appellees' business to the new parcel. The county argues that the agreement is not enforceable because it violates the provision in our statute of frauds which requires that a contract for sale of land be signed by the party to be charged, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1993)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 75 A.L.R. 2d 627
...Whether or not the counterclaim contains allegations sufficient to state a cause of action. 2. Was it error to dismiss the counterclaim without leave to amend? Consideration of the first question immediately presents the applicability of that portion of the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, F.S.A., which reads: "No action shall be brought whereby * * * to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage * * * unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memor...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15344
...See Pan American Distributing Co. v. Sav-a-Stop, Inc.,
124 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). The judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1973), provides in part: "
725.01 Promise to pay another's debt, etc....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed except that portion of the cost judgment which awarded defendant-Green Manor Construction Co. $188.00 for the expense of Mr. Ellis attending the trial, which is reversed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. NOTES [1] § 725.01 Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Rather, the essential terms will
vary widely according to the nature and complexity of each transaction and will be
evaluated on a case by case basis . . . .” Socarras v. Claughton Hotels, Inc., 374
7Florida’s statute of frauds is outlined in section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2010),
and provides in pertinent part:
No action shall be brought whereby ....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3458, 2009 WL 1097260
...The trial court rejected this argument, and instead found that Defendants were estopped from denying the terms of the contract, based upon Plaintiff's expenditure of $50,000 to modify its system in reliance on the promise of free reclaimed water for twenty years, as set forth in the contract. This appeal followed. Analysis Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2007), sets forth Florida's Statute of Frauds as follows: 725.01....
...City of Tallahassee,
366 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), involved enforcement of a contract signed by the party to be charged, and did not involve the statute of frauds. The case has no application here, where enforcement of the contract is barred by the plain language of section
725.01....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
its implementing regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 725.1 et seq. A District Director 1
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 712737
...om an order of summary judgment and an order dismissing, with prejudice, one count of a second amended complaint. [1] We affirm. The trial court was correct in ruling that the claim for breach of an oral contract was barred by the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1993)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11061, 1991 WL 225507
...hotel fees and never remitted the funds to appellant. Appellant sued for the net sum of $14,-734.52, this amount being the fees less an advertising setoff. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the action was barred by the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...The allegations of appellee’s answer and the affirmative defense raised, for the purpose of the motion, were to be deemed false and ineffectual. See Venditti-Siravo,
418 So.2d at 1253 . Furthermore, the defense was neither admitted nor established by appellant’s complaint. Section
725.01, Florida Statutes, provides: No action shall be brought whereby ......
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2013 WL 6124277
...to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires or appeal to the prurient interest. d. the production of pornography. §
787.06(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Insert definition of loan sharking from §
687.071 Fla. Stat. Insert explanation of the statute of frauds from §
725.01 Fla....
...to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires or appeal to the prurient interest. d. the production of pornography. §
787.06(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Insert definition of loan sharking from §
687.071, Fla. Stat. Insert explanation of the statute of frauds from §
725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 2861297
...sonably necessary to protect that interest. §
542.335(1), Fla. Stat. [1] Under the Statute of Frauds, any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from its making must be reduced to writing in order to be *713 enforceable. §
725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...to be shared equally between them.” The relief sought was an accounting of profits. The appellee urges that the bill of complaint alleges an oral contract to buy specific land and therefore comes within the purview of the statute of frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 58568
...Hoff Electric Company, Inc., to come back on the job with the promise that Defendants would pay the Plaintiff's bill." The court further found that the unpaid amount was $5,288. Nevertheless, the court held the agreement was oral and thus barred by section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1987), as a collateral agreement to pay the debt of another....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 561854
...he land as delivered. The trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment based on Canell and the Statute of Frauds. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a trial on the merits. REVERSED AND REMANDED. GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1788053
...Guest argues that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him claiming, among other things, that the evidence of record does not support the application of Florida's statute of frauds. We disagree as to all counts except counts V and VI. Florida's statute of frauds is set forth in section 725.01 of the Florida Statutes (2005): 725.01....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 819
...Tallahassee Associates argues that it did not approve the lease because Hobco refused to provide the paved parking spaces the lease required. Tallahassee Associates contends that the lower court ignored Florida’s Statute of Frauds, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 725.01 (West 1969), and mistakenly concluded that the unsigned lease bound Hobco to provide this parking....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 156712
...uire a writing in certain situations. Under section
95.04, Florida Statutes, a promise to pay a debt barred by the statute of limitations must be in writing. Similarly, Florida's Statute of Frauds bars oral contracts in certain other situations. See §
725.01, Fla. Stat. (2003). However, the extension in this case was not required to have been in writing under either section
95.04 or section
725.01....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...with the lessor's knowledge and acquiescence. But the putting of the lessees in possession and acceptance of payment of rents as orally agreed on is usually sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds (Rev.Gen.St. 1920, § 3872 [F.S.A. § 725.01])....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 18073, 2008 WL 5070150
...tatute of frauds." The trial court granted the motion to dismiss only as to counts one, two, three, six, seven, and nine and only as to defendants Boone, King, and Sterling. In so doing, the court tracked the language of Florida's statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2006), by concluding that the claims against Boone, King, and Sterling are actions barred by the statute of frauds since the claims against such Defendants involve the alleged contract for sale of lands ..., or of an...
...Unjust Enrichment We also reverse the trial court's dismissal of count seven as to Boone, in which the Braces alleged unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that the property is worth $450,000 and that Boone was able to purchase it for $198,000. Based on the plain language of section 725.01, such a claim is not subject to the statute of frauds as it does not involve a "contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or ......
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12465, 2017 WL 3727048
...mediation agreements must be reduced to writing. However, the only
arguments preserved for appeal are those based on the general statute of
frauds and the Banking Statute of Frauds.
The original statute of frauds was first enacted in England in 1677. 29
Chas. II, c. 3 (1677); see § 725.01, Fla....
...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.
§ 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1812732
...We affirm the dismissal of count V for breach of shareholder agreement, but reverse the dismissal of the other ten counts. The trial court dismissed count I for fraud in the inducement and count VIII for breach of contract as barred by the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in pertinent part: No action shall be brought ......
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10845, 2001 WL 864275
...n them relating to such contract or the failure or refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof. The provision requires only that an arbitration clause be in writing, not that both parties sign it. Section
682.02 is unlike the statute of frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes (2000), which requires that certain agreements or promises, or "some note or memorandum thereof," be "in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith." (Italics supplied)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 190, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 502, 2000 WL 622698
...ment as a matter of law. Plaintiff's claim for enforcement of an oral employment agreement, as asserted against Paxson Electric Company in Count I of the Amended Complaint, the only claim remaining in this action, is barred by the statute of frauds, § 725.01, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 34 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1506
...At issue in this appeal is the enforceability of an oral agreement entered into between appellant, Dr. Ted Rozema, and appellee, Deborah Wilson. Rozema, defendant below, sought to avoid performance under the agreement arguing the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, in a motion for partial summary judgment....
...Subsequent to that order, the court entered a final "order" in favor of Wilson for specific performance, in which it incorporated the prior order. [1] The sole issue raised on appeal regards the trial court's finding UCC Article II to be controlling, denying applicability of Section 725.01, and denying appellant's motion for partial summary judgment....
...e oral agreement, it is clear that Rozema retained possession of Yocanda's foal. Wilson subsequently filed suit, primarily seeking specific performance. Rozema moved for partial summary judgment alleging the agreement violated the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, as being impossible of performance within one year....
...is similarly predicated on the existence of a contract for sale. Having determined the oral agreement is not controlled by the UCC, Article II, we turn our attention to whether the agreement is unenforceable under the conventional Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01. Under 725.01, an oral agreement would be enforceable unless it "is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof ..." It is uncontroverted in the record that the oral agreement entered into between Rozema and Wilson would extend over a period of three years of breeding....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ntzberg v. Golestaneh,
390 So.2d 759 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Koplin v. Bennett,
155 So.2d 568 *155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Moreover, the fact that Brickell did not execute any such agreement in writing precludes enforcement because of the statute of frauds. Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1979); Rundel v....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...cts unenforceable against her when not signed in a certain manner, was intended to operate "as a shield of defense and not as a sword of offense." Edgar v. Bacon,
97 Fla. 679,
122 So. 107, 110. Appellant's argument that the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. §
725.01 was not complied with was without merit, because the party against whom the contract was sought to be enforced signed it....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2372, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5615, 1989 WL 118923
...roperty and that the time for acceptance specified in the contract had been extended pursuant to an oral agreement with Citicorp. Both Citicorp and Rubinson moved for summary judgment, claiming Goldman’s action was barred by the Statute of Frauds. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3408098
...Finally, none of the other arguments raised by Syfrett in the motion to dismiss have conclusive merit at this stage. Syfrett's argument concerning the failure of appellant Laura White to sign the contract lacks merit because Syfrett himself, "the party to be charged," signed the contract. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 1037950
...fined in sections
475.01(1)(c) & (d), Florida Statutes (1993). The trial court erred in dismissing on that basis. Riviera argues that the dismissal was proper because the alleged agreement was a parol agreement and it violated the statute of frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1993), which prohibits an action upon any agreement not to be performed within one year from its inception....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...We find this point to be well taken and, therefore, do not discuss the other points urged by the appellants for reversal. Clearly, the plaintiff was not to receive his interest until subsequent to two years after his arrival in Florida, which brought the matter within the prohibition of § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6180
...law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.”); James W. Ely, Jr., The Contract Clause: A Constitutional History 252-53 (2016) (“[T]he Florida Supreme Court has signaled its willingness to protect contracts more fully than the federal courts.”). Additionally, nothing in the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes, requires that such an agreement be in writing....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5558
...We adhere to the holding of this court in the Williams case, and based upon that and the other authorities cited above hold that the trial court did not err in its construction of the statute of frauds as contended by appellant. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ-, concur. . F.S. § 725.01, F.S.A....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 21 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 185, 1989 Bankr. LEXIS 787, 1989 WL 54434
...New Town Building construction contracts. Defendant did not produce any written record of this transaction to substantiate his claim. Suncrete could not refute the testimony but suggests that the failure to satisfy the statute of frauds set forth in § 725.01, Florida Statutes, would invalidate any assignment....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3882, 2004 WL 592426
...as Candle Corporation of America, doing business as Partylite Gifts (American Zurich), appeals the final summary judgment entered in favor of St. George Crystal, Ltd. (St. George). Because the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining that section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1997), barred American Zurich’s claims, we reverse the trial court’s final summary judgment, and we remand for further proceedings....
...American Zurich was unable to produce a writing signed by St. George or its authorized agent acknowledging the terms of the contract. St. George moved for summary judgment on the ground that the contract alleged in the complaint was unenforceable pursuant to section
725.01 because it was not in a writing signed by St. George and was a promise “to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person.” In response, American Zurich asserted that section
725.01 was inapplicable. American Zurich asserted that because the alleged agreement was a contract for the sale of goods, section
672.201, Florida Statutes (1997), the statute of frauds contained in article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code — and not section
725.01 — was controlling. The circuit court ruled that section
725.01 barred the enforcement of American Zurich’s claims “to the extent same sound in indemnification or seek recovery for breach of contract based upon any contractural [sic] provision dealing with indemnification.” Accordingly, the circuit court entered a final summary judgment in favor of St....
...Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P.,
760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). Therefore, the standard of review of a summary judgment is de novo. Id. Our review of the summary judgment in this case requires us to determine whether the circuit court correctly ruled as a matter of law that section
725.01 was applicable to the agreement between American Zurich’s insured and St....
...to a contract for the sale of goods. If so, then section
672.201, the statute of frauds provided for in article 2 of the UCC, is controlling. Only upon a finding that section
672.201 is not controlling need we refer to the general statute of frauds, section
725.01. Cf. Rozema v. Wilson,
419 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (excluding the applicability of section
672.201 before analyzing the enforceability of a contact under section
725.01)....
...and St. George agreed to sell one or more quantities of candle holders. Because candle holders meet the definition of “goods” contained in section
672.105, the parties’ agreement was for a transaction in goods. Therefore, section
672.201, not section
725.01, is controlling on the statute of frauds issue. Because section
725.01 was inapplicable to the agreement between American Zurich’s insured and St. George, the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of St. George on the theory that section
725.01 operated to bar the enforcement of American Zurich’s claims based on contractual indemnity....
...Alumax Fabricated Prods., Inc.,
666 So.2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (noting the distinction between eliminating the statute of frauds as a defense and proving the terms of the contract). Our resolution of this matter also makes it unnecessary for us to address St. George’s argument that section
725.01’s reference to a “promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another” applies to a contract for indemnity....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 2040485
...Nixon Daniel, III, Charles Wiggins, and Terrie L. Didier of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Ballard-Cannon Development Corporation ("B-C") appeals a directed verdict that found its purported oral contract with Appellees unenforceable under Florida's statute of frauds. See § 725.01, Fla....
...contract. See Russell v. Thielen,
82 So.2d 143, 146 (Fla. 1955) ("`A contract between two persons to go into the business of buying and selling real estate as partners or as joint adventurers, sharing profits and losses *1252 thereof, is not within [Section
725.01, Florida Statutes] unless there is a provision for transfer of specific land from one party to the other.'" (quoting 2 Corbin on Contracts § 418)); see also McCloud v....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2283
...Thus it is not a promise to pay a commission that the broker seeks to enforce, but a promise to convey. Under such circumstances, since the oral promise to convey real property could not be enforced because it comes within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., an action for damages for the breach thereof will not lie....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...the disclaimer incapable of recordation under section
739.601, the lack of a legal
description does not otherwise affect its validity.
Finally, we note that the trial court summarily determined that the disclaimer
did not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds, section
725.01 of the Florida
Statutes.3 Even if Florida’s statute of frauds were to apply to disclaimers of real
property governed by chapter 739, the subject disclaimer is in writing and signed by
Nicole Lee – i.e., “the party to be charged therewith.” Id....
...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.
§ 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 10882
...Pan American Inv. and Dev. Corp.,
450 So.2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Accordingly, we reverse as to dismissal of this count. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT We agree that, on the face of her amended petition, Campo's count for breach of oral contract is barred by section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1995), the Statute of Frauds. Section
725.01 requires that an agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making of the agreement is unenforceable and void unless reduced to writing....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 122, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 92
...at least two other potential contract defenses: (1) whether Coletta's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (2) whether the alleged oral promise falls within the statute of frauds, and therefore, is unenforceable. See F.S.A. § 725.01 (2006)(stating that "any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof" is not enforceable unless in writing).
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 151460
...Plaintiff appeals from (1) the judgment for defendants entered upon the granting by the trial court of their motion for a directed verdict on the breach of contract count of the complaint; the basis for the judgment was that enforcement of the contract was barred by the statute of frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1985); (2) the judgment for defendants entered upon the granting by the trial court of their motion for a directed verdict on the fraud count of the complaint under section
517.301, Florida Statutes (1985); a basis f...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4653
...evidence, pursuant to Rule 1.15(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., then in effect. The substance of the motion was that the defendants sought to amend their answer to include the defense of failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4508, 2010 WL 1329371
...... 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. § 725.01, Fla....
...egotiator. An oral joint venture agreement for the entire project is unenforceable for a separate reasonit violates the statute of frauds because it was an "agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof." § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4577, 1989 WL 23806
...the jury’s verdict findings.” Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. See Watts v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,
842 F.2d 307, 310 (11th Cir.1988). 3 . The Florida statute of frauds, Fla.Stat. §
725.01 states in pertinent part: No action shall be brought ......
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5799
...We find substantial, competent evidence in the record upon which the trial court could find that Baya did not look to Price as the primary obligor, and that he considered Carr and Myer primarily responsible for his professional services and Price secondarily liable. This cause is governed by the Statute of Frauds, Fla.Stat. § 725.01, F.S.A....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1414275, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6496
...It does not apply to the admission of subsequent oral agreements that alter, modify, or change the former existing agreement between the parties.” Id. at 254 (emphasis added). The statute of frauds generally prohibits a claim based on an oral agreement that is not to be performed within one year of its making. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 74 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 293, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5206, 2011 WL 1376686
...Barth Indus., Inc.,
160 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir.1998)(citing United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. N. Am. Steel Corp.,
335 So.2d 18, 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)). Concluding that the predominant purpose of the contract was the sale of real estate, not goods, we apply the statute of frauds contained in section
725.01, Florida Statutes. Similar to section
672.201(1), section
725.01 requires that a contract for sale of real estate be in writing and signed by the party to be charged....
...l court that the provision of a fully furnished home with $360,000 in furnishings set forth an essential term of the contract with reasonable certainty. Competent substantial evidence supports its determination. This contract met the requirements of section 725.01, and was entitled to be enforced by a judgment of specific performance....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...The trial court found, among other things, that there was an oral agreement made on September 21, 1974 between Clover and General for payment of the prior existing debt of Gossett and that the promise was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1973)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5265
...As pointed out by appellees the plaintiff alleged an express agreement to supply security. 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....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13416, 2016 WL 4645407
...Importantly, appellees’ motion to dismiss did not:
- seek dismissal of the action in its entirety;
- seek dismissal of any counts based upon misjoinder of claims;
- seek dismissal of any counts based on the statute of frauds (section
725.01, Florida Statutes (2014)); or
- seek dismissal (on any basis) of Counts 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 or 16.
Thereafter, the parties filed memoranda of law, after which the trial court
issued the order on review witho...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1886, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14780
...Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Lane Lines is the only corporation bound by the oral settlement agreement, so appellant is attempting to hold appellees responsible for the debt of another in violation of the statute of frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes; and (2) the oral settlement agreement is invalid as an attempt to orally encumber real and personal property, in violation of the statute of frauds, sections 679.203 and
689.01, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 61, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 1571, 1999 WL 1215747
...ment as a matter of law. Plaintiff's claim for enforcement of an oral employment agreement, as asserted against Paxson Electric Company in Count I of the Amended Complaint, the only claim remaining in this action, is barred by the statute of frauds, § 725.01, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2117, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10115
...onveyance agreed upon. If no land conveyance was involved in the $150,000 agreement then the statute of frauds is not involved, but merely an oral contract for payment to facilitate the taking. I would sustain the trial judge's result. NOTES [1] See § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida
...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. Fla. Stat. § 725.01 The Supreme Court of Florida further clarified: [A]ll actions based on agreements for longer than one year must depend on a written statement or memorandum, signed by the party to be charged....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 2016 WL 4916757
Insert explanation of the statute of frauds from §
725.01 Fla. Stat. “Financial harm” includes [extortionate
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3518
...e contention that even admitting for the purposes of this motion that an oral contract in the terms alleged had been entered into, the contract was unenforceable under the “one year clause” of the Florida version of the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01....
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 94, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 1277, 1996 WL 591070
...Those loans are not at issue here. . The Trastee also raised the issue of whether the May 11, 1995 Letters are guaranties that satisfy the Statute of Frauds writing requirement. The Court finds that the May 11, 1995 Letters are guaranties that satisfy the writing requirement of § 725.01 (Statute of Frauds), Florida Statutes (1995)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. F.S. Section 725.01, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 2015 WL 5853925
...appeal to the prurient interest.
d. the production of pornography.
- 60 -
§
787.06(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Insert definition of loan sharking from §
687.071
Fla. Stat. Insert explanation of the statute of frauds from §
725.01 Fla....
...satisfy the sexual desires or appeal to the prurient interest.
d. the production of pornography.
§
787.06(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Insert definition of loan sharking from §
687.071,
Fla. Stat. Insert explanation of the statute of frauds from §
725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13150, 1999 WL 781575
...We recognize that a contract to purchase real property must be signed, but that requirement does not alter our conclusion regarding the validity of the Department’s offer. The signature requirement imposed by the Statute of Frauds applies to the contract, not to the offer to make a contract. See § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2112, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15323
PER CURIAM. The summary final judgment entered in favor of the defendants-appellees on the sole ground that Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1977), rendered unenforceable the agreement sued upon is reversed upon a holding that the agreement, under which the appellant released his existing right to purchase from the appellees certain specified condominium...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9980, 1994 WL 568095
...We believe that the trial court came to the correct conclusion and that its reason — expressed on rehearing — was similarly correct; namely, “classic” estoppel. Accordingly, we affirm. We are not persuaded by appellant’s position that the case is governed by the club’s governing documents, nor section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1989)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21396
...oses such a requirement. Second, contrary to the appellees’ contention, the consent of the obligors is not a “promise to answer for the debt ... of another person,” an action upon which is barred by the statute of frauds if not in writing, see § 725.01 Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5950842, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17861
...At the close of Browning’s case, Poirier moved for a directed verdict on both counts of Browning’s complaint. The trial court granted a directed verdict on the claim for breach of oral contract, finding that the action was barred by the statute of frauds. § 725.01, Fla....
...... 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. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24166
trial court ruled that the statute of frauds, Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), was no bar to enforcement
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16979, 2008 WL 4791006
...the decedent through Monument to convey equity back to Delta once he secured it. Thus, Delta fully performed by transferring the four properties to Monument. Generally, an oral contract for the conveyance of land is barred by the statute of frauds. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10712, 1994 WL 600815
...Epes filed a “Denial of Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses” and an answer to the counterclaim, asserting a number of affirmative defenses. The defense that is pertinent to this appeal is that the oral agreement evidenced by the letter of November 9 was unenforceable under section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1987), the statute of frauds. 1 Epes successfully argued at trial that the agreement was an oral promise to pay the debt of another and that the copy of the letter of November 9 bearing his signature of approval was ineffectual to satisfy the requirements of section 725.01 because it was never delivered to Magrann....
...The end result was that the trial court found against Magrann on all issues and defenses and entered a final judgment against him for $136,212.70, which includes principal ($55,-000), prejudgment interest ($58,465), attorney’s fees ($21,455), and costs ($1,292.70). The trial court relied upon the following portion of section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1987): No action shall be brought ......
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4690
axiomatic that, under the Statute of Frauds, F.S. §
725.01 F.S.A., a mere oral contract for sale of lands
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3592
...e he made additional oral guaranties of the notes to the plaintiff. In order to be enforceable, an agreement (by Akers) to pay the debt of another (Akers Hair Treatment Centre, Ltd. and International Products & Service, Ltd.) must be in writing. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24227
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. The statute of frauds prohibits actions based on unwritten promises to pay the debts of third parties in the absence of any independent consideration running to the guarantor. § 725.01, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Section 725.01, F.S.1971, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17048, 2015 WL 7074662
...tes (2011). The statute
operates to sanction the presentation of unsupported claims or defenses. The trial court
awarded sanctions because Ms. Heldt-Pope asserted a constructive trust counterclaim
that could not satisfy the statute of frauds. See § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1318, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3040, 1989 WL 56018
...f the lease, or at least as of that date, and assumed a portion of the obligation of the lease as their interest may appear. Drew v. Hobbs,
104 Fla. 427 ,
140 So. 211 (1932); Kumar Corporation v. Nopal Lines, Ltd.,
462 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1983)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5786, 1992 WL 111384
...lees to purchase from third parties a restaurant and certain franchise rights. If the oral agreement alleged in count two is solely one for purchase, such agreement could be performed within one year and would not be barred by the statute of frauds, section 725.01 of the Florida Stat *1199 utes (1991)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15689
barred by the Statute of Frauds, now found in Section
725.01, *21Florida Statutes (1977). The parties agree
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13375
PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment of the trial court which in effect found that the Statute of Frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), did not bar appellee’s claim....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...should the project prove
unprofitable.’” (quoting Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth.,
510 F. Supp. 2d 691, 730 (M.D. Fla. 2007))).
Counts II and III of the amended complaint seek equitable relief and
the imposition of a constructive trust on allegations sounding in unjust
1
§
725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1446
by the party to be charged" as prescribed by Section
725.01, F.S. 1941 F.S.A., (Statute of Frauds) and
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1242, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2868, 1989 WL 52141
...assume, the debts that were previously owed by her husband. However, as the appellant argues, her oral agreement with the appel-lees was a promise to pay the debt of another, her husband, and, therefore, is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. § 725.01, Fla.Stat....
...4th DCA 1975) (statute of frauds bars enforcement of oral agreement to pay debts of third party unless promisor is pri *431 mary obligor). We, accordingly, find that the appellant's agreement to pay each of the appellees $100 a month was a promise to pay the debt of another and, therefore, is unenforceable under section 725.01 in the absence of a writing....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 158 Fla. 902, 1947 Fla. LEXIS 666
...*903 The sworn answer is contra to every material allegation of the bill. The chancellor held that the bill stated a prima facie case for relief and that may be said to be the controlling question. This oral agreement must be construed with regard to our statute of frauds. Section 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5790
PER CURIAM. In our opinion the trial court correctly concluded that under the facts alleged in the amended complaint, the contract upon which the plaintiff sought to recover was within the statute of frauds, Section 725.01, F.S.1967, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15699
...Rosin moved to dismiss the amended complaint as to him, on the ground that as a promise to pay the debt of another, and as an agreement not to be performed with *282 in a year, his alleged oral undertaking was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, § 725.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
...Felton, Fla.1953,
63 So.2d 278 ; Larnel Builders, Inc. v. United States Concrete Pipe Co., Fla.App.1960,
117 So.2d 438 ; Troup Brothers, Inc. v. State, Fla.App. 1961,
135 So.2d 755 . Assuming, without so deciding, that Rosin’s alleged oral promise was not unenforceable under §
725.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
...as an oral promise to answer for the debt of another person, the amended complaint sufficiently showed that Rosin’s oral agreement was one that was not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, for which reason action thereon was barred by § 725.01....
...ide from the interest. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed. . In Martin the appellate court affirmed an order which dismissed a complaint declaring on an oral lease, as being unenforceable under the statute of frauds applicable thereto, § 725.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...NOTES [1] "There was complete absence of evidence to establish any written executed contract of lease of the real property between the parties. "The Court finds that the oral agreement, if any existed, for a three year lease of defendant ALLISON'S real property is within the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01 F.S.A., and is therefore unenforceable....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3104, 2017 WL 927813
...ust enrichment damages for improvements Church allegedly made to Owner’s property. . Florida's statute of frauds generally requires that any contract for sale of real property is unenforceable unless in writing and signed by the party to be bound. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3745, 2013 WL 842853
...At the close of Browning’s case, the trial court granted a directed verdict on the claim for breach of contract, finding that the action was barred by the statute of frauds because it was not in writing as required for a contract “not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof....” See § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1103455
...uiring contracts for the sale of securities to be in writing, barred the claims. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment based solely on section 678.319. Kim then moved for summary judgment on counts VI-VII, based on Florida Statutes section
725.01, the Statute of Frauds provision relating to conveyances of real property, and section
670.206, the Statute of Frauds provision addressing personal property, which the trial court granted....
...act because: "There is no `price' for stock transferred pursuant to an employment contract. The only consideration is the employment itself."). We next address Counts VI-VII. The trial court granted summary judgment on these counts based on sections 725.01 and 678.319....
...rtgage. Full performance of an agreement takes the agreement outside the Statute of Frauds. Rubenstein v. Primedica Healthcare, Inc.,
755 So.2d 746, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Shaffer v. Ricci,
603 So.2d 566, 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). As such, sections
725.01 and 678.319 did not bar Counts VI-VII or Brodie's complaint....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...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.
§ 725.01, Fla....
...prevent
the fraud it was designed to correct.” Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic
Hosp., Inc.,
190 So. 2d 777, 779 (Fla. 1966).
In the present case, there was no written agreement signed by both
parties as required by the statute of frauds. See §
725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15530
...Wolf filed a complaint and thereafter, pursuant to an agreed order of the parties, an amended complaint to recover from Malevani the monies she contributed on the theories of unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel. Malevani filed a motion to dismiss on the ground Wolf was barred from recovery by the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1975)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 575, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 779, 1988 WL 15437
...e for all or some of the services that she rendered to appellee; and all of appellant’s claims for *691 relief that were based upon any oral agreement by appellee to make a will naming appellant as beneficiary were barred by section
732.701 and/or section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1985)....
...ined in section
732.502 and is a reasonable requirement for the enforceability of agreements to make wills. Any other interpretation, such as applying the part performance doctrine to remove the agreement from the operation of the Statute of Frauds (section
725.01) would permit by indirection that which cannot be done directly....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1958 Fla. LEXIS 1662
...Certain other relief incidental thereto was also granted. *813 The appellants have presented three questions for our consideration: (1) Does the evidence support a finding by the court that an easement of necessity exists? (2) Is oral evidence permissible in view of Section 725.01, Fla.Stats., F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9458, 2003 WL 21466963
...Lindros brought an action for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of an oceanfront condominium. At the conclusion of Appellant’s case in chief, the trial court granted Appellees’ motion for dismissal on the basis that “the plaintiffs proofs failed to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Florida Statutes, in that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants signed the documents alleged to constitute such a contract, or the plaintiff failed to show that defendants’ names were signed thereto by a person authorized to s...
...erse. We hold that the aggregated documents in the record, including an extension agreement signed by Appellant and Appel-lee Marjorie Backus after a power of attorney was executed authorizing her to sell the condominium, satisfy the requirements of section 725.01, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4590
...Viva and Pino counterclaimed for declaratory relief, contending that under section
542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), 3 the purported assignment of Pino’s agreement not to compete was invalid. Pino and Viva further contended that Pino’s alleged oral consent to the assignment violated the Statute of Frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1985), because the assignment was not capable of performance within one year....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2013 WL 3376776
...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.” Fla. Stat. § 725.01 ....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9564
...the trial court concluded that a “promise to refrain from suit for an unspecified period of time is an illusory promisef,] which cannot be deemed specific consideration for an agreement.” Second, the trial court ruled that the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes, barred the enforcement of the oral agreement because it “would have provided [Dr....
...The statute of frauds, in pertinent part, says that “No action shall be brought ... upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the *906 space of 1 year from the making thereof ,.. unless the agreement or promise ... shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith.... ” § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14555
...ry, March and April. The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial and at the close of Dworkin’s case, defendant moved for a directed verdict. The trial judge granted the motion on the grounds that the oral agreement was barred by the Statute of Frauds [§ 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.], and the evidence was totally insufficient to support his claim. We affirm. Dworkin, in effect, admitted in his deposition that he was entering into- an oral agreement for a period in excess of one year. Therefore, his claim under the oral employment contract is barred by § 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6699, 1995 WL 366717
...denied,
458 So.2d 273 (Fla.1984); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter,
386 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied,
392 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1981), cert. denied,
452 U.S. 955 ,
101 S.Ct. 3099 ,
69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981); Tobin & Tobin Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Zeskind,
315 So.2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1994).
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Indeed, the statute of frauds requires that “any
special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another
person . . . or upon any contract for the sale of lands . . . shall be in writing
and signed by the party to be charged therewith . . . .” § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4367, 1990 WL 82478
...Subsequently, Ludwig sold unit 5 to a third party. Porry filed this breach of contract action seeking damages against Ludwig. Ludwig moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the “contract” relied on by Porry violated the Statute of Frauds for the sale of real property. § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2203045, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9744
...ively, for a new trial based on the jury’s confusion over the interrogatory “1(b).” The trial court denied the motions without a hearing. Final judgment was entered against Tydir in accordance with the jury’s verdict, and this appeal ensued. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, Florida’s “Statute of Frauds,” states in relevant part as follows: No action shall be brought ......
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...4
modification to or change in this Contract shall be valid or binding upon
Buyer or Seller unless in writing and executed by the parties intended to
be bound by it.” This is consistent with the requirements of the Statute of
Frauds. See § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9261, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1639
evidenced by some written note or memorandum, §
725.01, Fla.Stat. (1979), nonetheless, we find no competent
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9692, 1999 WL 510587
...The statute of frauds provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o action shall be brought ... upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year ... unless the agreement ... or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith.... ” § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1999373
...ed methodology, the testimony will be stricken."). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment in the Mondys' favor and remand for entry of a new judgment without consideration of the handwriting expert's testimony. NOTES [1] The trial court cited to section 725.01 Florida Statutes, which is a part of the Florida Statute of Frauds, requiring a contract for the sale of lands to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1571, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8846
...Lanier, but she signed the agreement only once and did not indicate that she was signing as attorney-in-fact for Mrs. Lanier. The court below ordered specific performance of the contract and entered judg *333 ment for the brokerage fee. We conclude there was no contract and reverse. Under section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1983), no action shall be brought to charge a defendant upon any contract unless the agreement upon which the action is brought is in writing and is signed by the defendant or some other person lawfully authorized by him....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 147, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 25, 1988 WL 205
...statute of frauds. 1 Booth’s maintains the trial court erred in ruling that Rathmann’s claim was based on an oral collateral promise to pay the debt of the builder, Boyd-Scarp, and was barred by the statute of frauds. *423 Our statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that “[n]o action shall be brought ......
...to the job and agreed to forebear from filing a claim of lien against the owner’s real property. The appellate court reversed a dismissal of the complaint which had been based on the statute of frauds, stating: As to the general Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, supra, we hold that the owner’s oral promise in this case is not within the purview thereof....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 7043
...the handling and racing of the dogs. See Kislak v. Kreedian, Fla. 1957,
95 So.2d 510 . '[2, 3] However, we affirm for a different reason, upon concluding that the oral lease was not enforceable because it *562 was within the statute of frauds. 1 See §
725.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7436
...We reverse the order appealed decreeing specific performance of this written document because it was not sufficiently definite to support a decree of specific performance. Those cases dealing with the requirements of the statute of frauds are sufficiently analogous to support our view. Under the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the rule is well settled that the written memorandum of a contract for the sale of land must contain the essential elements of the contract....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13944
1953) nor violative of the statute of frauds, Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1977). The agreement for
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...roposition to be that the chancellor having chosen to believe the testimony that the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff was a direct promise to pay, the contract cannot be said to be within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01....
CopyPublished | Florida 6th District Court of Appeal
...“A guaranty is a
promise to pay the debt of another on the default of the person primarily liable for
payment or performance.” Fort Plantation Invs., LLC v. Ironstone Bank,
85 So. 3d
6
1169, 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). It must be in writing, and the guarantor must sign
it. §
725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 690, 2006 WL 168002
...The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings based on the statute of frauds. We reverse. “A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be ‘decided on the pleadings only.’ ” New Vista Dev. Corp. v. Doral Terrace Assocs., Ltd.,
878 So.2d 462, 464-65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Under section
725.01, Florida Statutes (2004), any agreement that is not to be performed within one year is barred unless it is in writing....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...court’s dismissal without further discussion.
As to the counts for negligent misrepresentation, fraud and rescission, and
fraud in the inducement, the trial court properly dismissed those claims against
Pawley as they are barred by the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes
(2016)....
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6826
...racted.” As a matter of law, no lien could have arisen. 2. Deseo is not to be obligated to pay plaintiff on the basis of any oral assurances that may have been received by David English, an employee of the plaintiff, from Charles Stevens of Deseo. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, renders unenforceable, “any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person ......
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6926
sued upon was within the Statute of Frauds, F.S. §
725.01, F.S.A. Appellant Harrison testified that it was
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11310
year as contemplated by the statute of frauds. §
725.01, Fla.Stat. (1981). As evidence of the parties’
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5403
...The trial court entered a summary final judgment in favor of the defendants. The allegations of the plaintiff amount to an oral obligation undertaken by the defendants to pay him $16,500.00 as a bonus for his services for three years payable in annual installments of $5,500.00. This amount was in addition to his salary. Section 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the Florida statute of frauds provides that “fn]o action shall be brought whereby * * * to charge any person * * * upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement * * * shall be in writing”....
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 302, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1251, 2006 WL 1555769
...he Law Firm and there was no written agreement between the parties. The Trust further contends that the claimed oral agreement to pay the debt of a party cannot be enforced as a matter of law because it is barred by the Statute of Frauds. Fla. Stat. 725.01 et seq....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1077, 2001 WL 99162
...In order to determine whether long-arm jurisdiction is appropriate, the trial court must first decide whether the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within section
48.181, which allows service of process on non-residents engaging in business in Florida. See §
725.01, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 938, 2004 WL 231249
...Appellant sued appellees for specific performance of a real estate contract, and fraud in the inducement of the same contract. The contract attached was not signed by appel-lees, nor was the seller identified. Appel-lee Allapattah Properties Partnership moved for summary judgment pursuant to section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2003), and attached an affidavit of its general partner swearing that he refused to deal with appellant and never signed a contract to sell him the subject real estate....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1108
...Several questions are presented for determination but the parties are not in agreement as to their statement or content. The crucial point in the case is whether or not the alleged oral contract was sufficiently definite to compel performance even if requirements of the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01, are met....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15478
an easement violates the statute of frauds. Section 725.-01, Florida Statutes (1975), and Florida Real
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1993, 2003 WL 365980
...The appellant appeals the grant of a summary judgment in favor of the appel-lees in connection with the appellant’s amended petition for specific performance of a contract. Since the record before the trial court reflects that the contract proposal failed to comport with Florida Statutes § 725.01, and was neither accepted, nor delivered, the summary judgment was properly rendered....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5857
...was reached between the plaintiff or any of the defendants relating to the subject matter of this action; (2) that if the parties had ever reached an oral agreement or contract, it-would have been within the purview of the Florida Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1090
...*280 The nature of the contract made is, of course, all important; because if the oral contract made between the general contractor and the • materialman involved a collateral rather than a direct, promise, it was within the Statute of Frauds and hence was not enforceable. See Section 725.01, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A.; Sanders v....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18411, 2015 WL 8347300
...of the Statute of Frauds and that the trial court incorrectly ruled the oral
modification was enforceable based upon application of the doctrine of
promissory estoppel. For the reasons stated below, we hold the trial
court’s finding that the mortgage was orally modified violates section
725.01, Florida Statutes (2013).1 We also agree that the trial court
1 It appears that there are at least two Statutes of Frauds in effect in Florida:
section
687.0304, Florida Statutes (2013), which has been referred to by courts
erroneously applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel....
...On cross-examination, appellee admitted that he had never
as Florida’s Banking Statute of Frauds, see, e.g., Bloch v. Wells Fargo Home
Mortg.,
755 F.3d 886, 889-90 (11th Cir. 2014); Congress Park Office Condos II,
LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co.,
105 So. 3d 602, 608 n.5 (Fla. 4th DCA
2013), and section
725.01. However, appellant argued below only that the oral
modification was invalid under section
725.01....
...(but never executed); and 4) the refunded 2008 payments were made pursuant
to a forbearance agreement between the parties. There was no documentation
presented at trial proving the existence of a written and executed forbearance
agreement.
3
Section 725.01 states, in pertinent part:
No action shall be brought ....
...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.
§ 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3524019
...[3] Second, the Manufacturer asserts that the trial court erred by denying its motions for directed verdict after the presentation of the Dealer's evidence and at the close of the Manufacturer's case. Because we reverse based on the first theory, we need not address the second. Analysis Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2005), provides: No action shall be brought ....
...[5] This argument fails to recognize that the oral contract, although based primarily on the terms of the Nordic Contract, is an independent agreement. Nor-Tech 1,
855 So.2d at 106. This independent agreement is not in writing and is not signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. See §§
672.201(1),
725.01, Fla....
...873,
9 So.2d 96, 97 (1942) (emphasis added). Because the oral contract in question was for the sale of goods over $500 and was not to be performed within one year, both the general and the Uniform Commercial Code statutes of frauds apply. §§
672.201(1),
725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19534, 2011 WL 6057910
...Farrell,
661 So.2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). A binding agreement to convey real property from the marital estate to one of the parties requires a writing signed by the parties, or an explicit bilateral stipulation on the record before a court reporter. See §
725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in the trial court appeals an order dismissing its complaint with prejudice. The controlling question is whether the contract sought to be enforced was an oral agreement within the Statute of Frauds (§ 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) in that it was an “ * * * agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, * * Plaintiff-appellant operates a rattan furniture factory....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1661467
...Brenda Kersey, the former wife, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution, contending that the lower court erred in (1) relying upon an oral prenuptial agreement to bar her claim for alimony on the ground that the agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1999); (2) ordering a distribution of marital assets and debts without hearing evidence or making findings of fact thereon; and (3) denying her claim for attorney's fees and costs without hearing evidence or making factual findings on her claim....
...court erred in so finding. Even if the oral agreement could be construed to mean that the parties had stipulated that no alimony would be paid upon a second dissolution, such agreement would be unenforceable by application of the Statute of Frauds. Section 725.01, which generally bars any action based on an agreement in consideration of marriage unless in writing, has been interpreted as permitting consideration of such oral contracts if performed within one year....
...Appellee's suggestion that the *526 act of marriage removed the purported oral agreement from the operation of the Statute of Frauds would, if carried to its logical extent, nullify the very portion of the Statute that compels the result we have reached in this case. As noted in the majority opinion, the Statute, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1999), provides, in pertinent part, that an action "to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage" shall not be maintained in the absence of a written note or memorandum memorializing such agreement, and signed by the party to be charged....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9642, 1990 WL 212030
...In the final judgments, the court, referring to the breach of oral contract claim, stated that it is undisputed that there is no written guarantee of the obligation. The court concluded that the statute of frauds bars CKI’s claim as a matter of law, citing §
725.01, Florida Statutes (1987), and Ball v. Yates,
158 Fla. 521 ,
29 So.2d 729 (1946), cert. denied,
332 U.S. 774 ,
68 S.Ct. 66 ,
92 L.Ed. 359 (1947). Although section
725.01, Florida Statutes, provides, inter alia, that a promise to pay another’s debt must be in writing, it does not govern here....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 55, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 5939
...The probate court found that there was no issue of fact presented by David Swartz which would be a defense to the request for delivery of the property. David has alleged the existence of an oral lease which, the appellees argue, is in violation of the statute of frauds, § 725.01, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. F.S. Section 725.01, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22003
...able for the payment of Purveyors’ bills for goods thereafter received and accepted by Brickell Bay Club, precluding at that stage of the non-jury proceedings (a) a finding that Forte’s agreement was unenforceable under either Section
672.201 or Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1977), because not in writing, Bruce Construction Corporation v....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5327
we opine flatly that the statute of frauds, F.S.
725.01, F.S. A., does not bar a suit for damages upon
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 16233
...Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln,
94 Fla. 1097 ,
115 So. 498 (1927); O’Neill v. Corporate Trustees, Inc.,
376 F.2d 818 (5th Cir.1967). The district court found that, even if the four letters could be considered a financing agreement, Florida Statutes §
725.01, Florida’s Statute of Frauds, renders it unenforceable as a “special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person.” Section
725.01 requires that such an agreement or promise be “in writing and signed by the party to be charged.” Moreover, to comply with the statute under Florida law, the writing must contain the essential terms of the agreement....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12924
...The terms of that contract were never reduced to writing, and the record indicates that the parties had diverging views as to the material terms of that agreement. The trial court was, therefore, correct in entering a final order of summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs claims on the basis of the statute of frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...m the defendant.” The appellant contends that she never agreed, either orally or in writing, to an extension of option to purchase and that the evidence was insufficient to remove this contract from the operation of the Statute of Fi-auds, to-wit: § 725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7935, 1991 WL 151977
...ction appellant suggests. But no matter how described, the fact remains that the alleged contract was oral. Regardless of whether the contract is one for the conveyance of property or for the devise of property, the oral contract is not enforceable. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that no action shall be brought on a contract for sale of real property, or any interest therein, unless the contract is in writing....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1879, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14903
...anty by the parties but rather an intent to enlarge its scope. This would not only fall under the prohibition of amending a writing by parol but would be an oral undertaking to pay the debt of another in violation of the statute of frauds. Fla.Stat. § 725.01, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Section 725.01 Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20874
consideration was barred by the statute of frauds, section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1979). Ap-pellee alleged
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Sep 21, 2023
...upon any agreement that is not to be performed within
the space of 1 year from the making thereof . . . unless the agree-
ment or promise upon which such action shall be brought . . . shall
be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith.” Fla.
Stat. § 725.01....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5598
sufficient memorandum to meet the Statute of Frauds, Section
725.01, F.S. 1957, F.S.A. The second question is whether
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5200
...Moses brought this action to recover damages for breach of a lease for the difference in the rents he received and the rents *7 specified in the 1963 lease, plus cost of remodeling for present tenants. Besco affirmatively pleaded that the statute ' of frauds applied because the 1963 lease was never executed by it. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: “No action shall be brought * * * upon any contract for the sale of lands, * * * or for any lease thereof for a period longer than one year, ....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5954
...The record contains a deed, dated 1957, from Kar-wowski to the Petermans granting them a life estate in certain property, and another deed, dated 1961, from third parties to the Petermans. An oral agreement which provides for the transferral of specific lands of one party to another is rendered unenforceable by Section 725.01 Fla.Stat., F....
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
...The Plaintiffs reliance on the alleged verbal representation is not justifiable. In Florida, the statute of frauds provides that no action can be brought to enforce a contract for the sale of land unless the contract is in writing and signed by the party to be charged. Fla. Stat. § 725.01 ....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge: This appeal, in a diversity action, requires application of Fla.Stat. § 725.01 to an indemnification contract which required written notice for termination....
...oral agreement notwithstanding the clause in the indemnity agreement requiring notice of termination to be in writing. Our task, then, in construing Florida law is to decide whether an indemnification contract required to be in writing by Fla.Stat. § 725.01 6 to be en *884 forceable can be terminated by an oral agreement, despite a provision in the contract which requires written notice to the surety in order to properly terminate....
...In an effort to surmount the predictable outcome in light of Cahill and Canada , F&D submits the argument that the Florida Statute of Frauds would be frustrated if the Stringers were allowed to circumvent the provisions of the indemnification agreement. Under Fla.Stat. § 725.01, contracts of indemnity containing promises to answer for the debt or default of another, such as the one here, come within the realm of the statute....
...a new agreement which would terminate the indemnification contract in a manner other than in writing. It is with the legality of this alleged oral agreement that we are predominately concerned, not the terms of the written contract which by its very nature is required by section 725.01 to be in writing to be enforceable....
...A default judgment had previously been entered against Tom Murphy Construction Company, Inc. This case was not disposed of in the district court on a motion for summary judgment. Because of the limited nature of the trial, however, we treat the disposition as though it were handled in summary judgment fashion. . Fla.Stat. § 725.01 provides, in pertinent part: No action shall be brought .....
...olicy provision specifying method of cancellation). Accord, Midstate Hauling Co. v. Reliable Ins. Co.,
437 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1971). . No Florida case has directly addressed the question of whether an agreement required to be in writing by Fla.Stat. §
725.01 to be enforceable can be terminated by a subsequent oral agreement....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 1307354, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4812
...udulent misrepresentation) surviving at the time the final judgment was entered, the trial court entered judgment for Appellee (the plaintiff) as described above. The parties correctly conceded, prior to the conclusion of the trial proceedings, that section 725.01, Florida Statutes, bars lawsuits upon promises to pay another’s debt and agreements which are not to be performed within one year, unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the party to be charged....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14117
...Thus it is not a promise to pay a commission that the broker seeks to enforce, but a promise to convey. Under such circumstances, since the oral promise to *75 convey real property could not be enforced because it comes within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., an action for damages for the breach thereof will not lie.” ■ For the foregoing reasons the final judgment appealed is REVERSED....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7745
CARROLL, Judge. This appeal is by the plaintiff below from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant. The ground upon which the judgment was based was that the contract declared upon was barred by the statute of frauds, § 725.01 Fla.Stat., F....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5236
...intiff in the amount sued upon, to-wit: Nine Hundred Twenty-Five ($925.-96) Dollars and 96/100, together with interest thereon and the costs in this cause.” It is appellant’s contention that material issues of fact were raised, including whether § 725.01 applies, and that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12708
...l judgment with respect to amounts stated as principal and interest due. In their motion to set aside the default and resulting final judgment, appellants maintained as a defense to the foreclosure that the agreement for deed was unenforceable under Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (statute of frauds), because not signed by appellants or anyone on their behalf....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 893, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1903, 1989 WL 34510
...bruary 28, 1985 to support it. See Dean v. Blank,
267 So.2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Count IV of the fourth amended complaint alleges an agreement between appellants and Emmer concerning a conveyance of land. Normally, the statute of frauds defense, section
725.01, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3521
...affirmative defense interposed; “The court thereupon stated that he would consider the discussion before him as plaintiff’s opening to the jury, and on the basis of the discussion was satisfied that plaintiff’s cause came within the purview of Section 725.01, *743 F.S.A., and in view of the defendant s affirmative plea of the statute would direct a verdict for the defendant.” The appellant presents two points....
