Cases from cite.case.law:

A. BERDICK d b a a v. COSTILLA F. NY a, 97 So. 3d 316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . “Pursuant to section 689.01, Florida Statutes [ (2010) ], an assignment or sublease for a lease with . . .

BRIDGEVIEW BANK GROUP, v. P. CALLAGHAN,, 84 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 689.01, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

TRG- BRICKELL POINTE NE, LTD. a v. GRAVANTE,, 76 So. 3d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . reconsideration motion because the motion established that Form H had been, in fact, dated, and because section 689.01 . . . In addition, because section 689.01 regulates the conveyance of real property and does not apply to documents . . .

In A M FLORIDA PROPERTIES II, LLC, GFI LLC, v., 435 B.R. 9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . . § 689.01 (West 2008), which requires that an agreement for sale of a property be (1) signed by the . . . Ann. § 689.01 (West 2008), which as the Defendant correctly notes, requires that an agreement for sale . . .

S I INVESTMENTS, v. PAYLESS FLEA MARKET, INC. a, 36 So. 3d 909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . the 2003 lease is unenforceable because it lacks two subscribing witnesses, as required by section 689.01 . . . See § 689.01, Fla. Stat. . . . And, because the 2003 lease was a new lease, it must comport with section 689.01 to be enforceable. . . . was deemed new or a renewal, two signatures were required under the applicable statute of frauds, § 689.01 . . . Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, requires that a lease for a term of more than one year be in writing . . .

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, v. AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, MAL UNLA, 367 F. App'x 971 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . agree with the Postal Service’s argument that the assignment here was invalid under Florida Statute § 689.01 . . . Here, because the parties did not comply with § 689.01, there was no transfer of interest in the property . . . Stat. § 689.01 provides: No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any . . .

SKYLAKE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. v. NMB PLAZA, LLC,, 23 So. 3d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . .” § 689.01, Fla. . . . Stat. (2003). 689.01 How real estate conveyed. — No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of . . . Under its plain language, section 689.01 is applicable to a conveyance of real estate, including a lease . . . The last sentence of section 689.01 states, “Corporations may convey in accordance with the provisions . . . Section 689.01 was therefore applicable here. See DGG Dev. Corp. v. . . .

In CALDWELL, Jr., 457 B.R. 845 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Stat. § 689.01 (1997). . . . Quih-Claim Deed 1 was executed in conformity with Florida Statute Section 689.01. . . . Quit-Claim Deed II was executed in conformity with Florida Statute Section 689.01. . . . Stat. § 689.01; Sweat v. Yates, 463 So.2d 306, 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). . . . Florida Statute Section 689.01 was amended in 2008 to clarify certain terms. . . .

In LETO, v., 315 F. App'x 800 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 689.01. . . .

In LETO, v., 315 F. App'x 800 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 689.01. . . .

PRO- ART DENTAL LAB, INC. v. V- STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC,, 986 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2008)

. . . P. 1.130(a)-(b); §§ 689.01, 692.01, 692.02, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . this dispute: Did this supposed lease-termination "agreement” comply with the formalities of section 689.01 . . .

DGG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v. ESTATE OF CAPPONI,, 983 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Florida law, corporations may convey real property in accordance with the requirements of either section 689.01 . . . Section 689.01 requires any conveyance of real property to be signed in the presence of two subscribing . . . Similarly, if a deed is executed in compliance with section 689.01 but is signed by someone other than . . .

McKOY R. v. DeSILVIO, J., 974 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 689.01, Fla. . . .

KEY, v. TRATTMANN,, 959 So. 2d 339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See also § 689.01, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (2003), provides: No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of . . .

RICE, v. L. RICE,, 499 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . §§ 689.01, 725.01; see also Guest v. . . . Stat. §§ 695.03 and 689.01. . . .

B. TUNNAGE, v. K. GREEN,, 947 So. 2d 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Florida Statutes section 689.01 (2005), provides that a deed transferring an interest in real property . . .

C. FREE, v. FREE, f k a, 936 So. 2d 699 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . contract was unenforceable because it did not have the signatures of two witnesses required by section 689.01 . . . He bases this argument on the provisions of section 689.01, Florida Statutes, which essentially require . . . Therefore, section 689.01 does not apply to mortgages, see Walker v. . . .

L. McINTOSH, W. v. GAUTHIER, G. C., 182 F. App'x 884 (11th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 689.01. . . . Section 689.01 does not expressly exclude vendees or purchasers from subscribing to deeds which purport . . . Thus, the quitclaim deed failed to satisfy the requirements of § 689.01. . . .

In RANCH HOUSE MOTOR INN INTERNATIONAL, INC. L. FMS v. L., 335 B.R. 894 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . that FMS’s claim of parking is barred by the statute of frauds as contained in sections 725.01 and 689.01 . . .

PADRON WAREHOUSE CORP. a v. THE REALTY ASSOCIATES FUND III, L. P. III, a J., 377 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . . § 689.01 allows a corporation to convey property under seal or in the presence of two subscribing witnesses . . . , and further states that conveyance may be made under § 689.01 or § 692.01. . . . But even if § 689.01’s method is not available or somehow does not apply, § 692.01 is not limited to . . .

SKYLINE OUTDOOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. N. JAMES,, 903 So. 2d 997 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, requires that an assignment of an interest of land for a term of more . . . Based on the requirements of section 689.01, Florida Statutes, and the reasoning in Ross, we REVERSE . . .

ESPRIELLA, v. DELVALLE,, 844 So. 2d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . finding that the deed “was not executed according to the requirements of Florida Statutes sections 689.01 . . . Section 689.01 of the Florida Statutes in general provides that creation or transfer of an interest in . . .

MARTIN PROPERTIES, INC. v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIES INVESTMENT CORPORATION, VOSR, 833 So. 2d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . valid because it was not signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses as is required by section 689.01 . . . Florida cases addressing whether the equity of redemption is an interest in land covered by section 689.01 . . .

CUDJOE GARDENS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. H. PAYNE, Jr., 779 So. 2d 598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . did not comply with the two-witness requirement of Florida’s version of the Statute of Deeds, section 689.01 . . . among the property owners and emphatically do not constitute interests in real estate to which section 689.01 . . . properly viewed separately from the restrictions themselves and qualify as "easements” to which section 689.01 . . .

AMERICAN GENERAL HOME EQUITY, INC. v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 769 So. 2d 508 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 689.01 requires that an interest in land be conveyed “by instrument in writing, signed in the . . .

GRIEM, v. ZABALA,, 744 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . . § 689.01 (1995). . . .

ALLEN DAMRON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. MICKENS J., 725 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . finding that Damron had obtained it by fraud and that it was not executed in compliance with section 689.01 . . .

In WEST LAKELAND LAND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WEST LAKELAND LAND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. UNITED STATES, 216 B.R. 892 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . . § 689.01, Fla. Stat. . . .

MULATO, v. MULATO,, 705 So. 2d 57 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . However, pursuant to the plain language of section 689.01, a seal is not necessary to give validity to . . .

A. SORRELS, s, v. REBECCA S ICE CREAM, INC., 696 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Pursuant to section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1993), an assignment or sublease for a lease with a term . . .

PATTERSON v. MADIGAN,, 693 So. 2d 137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . § 689.01, Fla. Stat. (1996); § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (1996). . . .

BREVARD COUNTY, v. C. RAMSEY,, 658 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Zuckerman noted that the formalities for conveyancing property are different in sections 689.01 (how . . . . §§ 689.01, 689.06, 732.502, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

FLORIDA WOMEN S MEDICAL CLINIC, INC. d b a s v. SULTAN,, 656 So. 2d 931 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . premises and is not witnessed by two witnesses and is thus unenforceable pursuant to Florida Statute § 689.01 . . . complaint was based was not witnessed, and therefore, failed to comply with the provisions of section 689.01 . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR, v. H. JOHNSON,, 648 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1994)

. . . Bartholomew and his wife, but the lease was executed only by Bartholomew and did not conform with section 689.01 . . .

C. NORDBERG, s v. GREEN,, 638 So. 2d 91 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . See § 689.01, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

UNITED STATES v. SMITH, Jr., 844 F. Supp. 734 (M.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . . § 689.01 (an interest in land for a term of more than one year must be created by a written instrument . . .

HAIGHT, v. HALL,, 625 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . was void for lack of execution in the presence of subscribing witnesses in accordance with section 689.01 . . .

ZUCKERMAN, v. ALTER,, 615 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1993)

. . . . § 689.01 (requiring real estate conveyances to be written and signed in the presence of two subscribing . . .

In L. MALMEN A., 140 B.R. 819 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992)

. . . . §§ 689.01-.04 (1991). In this case that date appears to be October 3, 1991. . . .

TEMA INVESTMENTS, N. V. N. V. v. B. SOBEL a, 581 So. 2d 192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . . §§ 689.01, 692.01, 692.02, Fla. Stat. (1987). . . .

In O CONNELL, W. GRANT, v. P. PODES, 119 B.R. 311 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . . § 689.01 (1989). . . .

S. RICH, Jr. v. C. GULLIVER,, 564 So. 2d 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Flamingo Corp., 121 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); § 689.01, Fla.Stat. (1989); see also Segovia Inv., . . .

FORT LAUDERDALE SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. BEACH BOYS PLAZA, INC., 539 So. 2d 560 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . . § 689.01, Fla.Stat. (1987); Richardson v. Holman, 160 Fla. 65, 33 So.2d 641 (1948). . . .

BENASUTTI, v. COSTALAS, a k a, 526 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . The trial court granted summary judgment based on its belief that section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1987 . . . The trial court erred in applying section 689.01 to the facts of this case. . . . The agreement in this case can be compared to a contract for sale for purposes of section 689.01. . . . That instrument will fall under the requirements of section 689.01. . . . We decline the invitation to consider arguments other than the application of section 689.01. . . .

SCHUELER, v. FRANKE T., 522 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Section 689.01 requires that all deeds be signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. . . .

CHASE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, v. B. SCHREIBER, W., 479 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1985)

. . . Neither sections 689.01 — .03, Florida Statutes (1977), nor section 689.09 for that matter, contain any . . .

A. DEVLIN, v. THE PHOENIX, INC., 471 So. 2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . See §§ 689.01, Fla.Stat., and 725.01, Fla.Stat. . See Crigger v. . . .

EARP SHRIVER, INC. v. C. EARP, 466 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . appeal from a judgment declaring void a deed for lack of subscribing witnesses as required by section 689.01 . . .

FOGAZZI v. TARTAN- LAVER DELRAY, INC., 11 Fla. Supp. 2d 59 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . Fogazzi, as Trustee, is governed by Section 689.01(1) Florida Statutes. 3. . . .

MAJOR REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 749 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 689.01 (1981). . . . .

ROSENTHAL f k a v. FINGER AND MARGOLIS, P. A., 460 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . , to be specifically enforceable, be signed in the presence of two witnesses as required by Section 689.01 . . . Zimmerman court explained that in formulating the rule it was relying on precedent which cited only section 689.01 . . . Carroll further explains: Since there is nothing in Section 689.01 to differentiate homestead realty, . . . upon the “duly executed” provision of the old constitution relating to homesteads and that Section 689.01 . . . The Carroll court declined as legislative prerogative to undertake to interpret Section 689.01 “to require . . .

SWEAT, v. YATES, C., 463 So. 2d 306 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . law because it was not executed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses as required by Section 689.01 . . . Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, does not require that witnesses must subscribe in the presence of the . . .

MOORINGS ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. TORTOISE ISLAND COMMUNITIES, INC., 460 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . . § 689.01, Fla.Stat. See Winters v. Alanco, Inc., 435 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dorsey v. . . . In this situation the deed or other written document satisfies the statutes (§§ 689.01 and 725.01, Fla.Stat . . . obligations implied as a matter of law, saves this exceptional situation from the effect of the statutes (§§ 689.01 . . .

AMERICAN LEGION COMMUNITY CLUB OF COCONUT GROVE, INC. v. DIAMOND,, 461 So. 2d 130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Banks, 386 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); § 689.01, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .

HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. L T, INC. Co., 455 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . orally encumber real and personal property, in violation of the statute of frauds, sections 679.203 and 689.01 . . .

SANDS, v. WOOTEN,, 439 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . for Dade County, Florida, each lack two subscribing witnesses as required by Florida Statutes, Sec. 689.01 . . .

L. WINTERS, J. J. A. H. L. P. K. M. v. ALANCO, INC. M. R. C. E. R. G. C. S. B. Sr. Jr. R. ALANCO, INC. v. L. WINTERS,, 435 So. 2d 326 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . . §§ 689.01 and 725.01, Fla. Stat. (1981); Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp., 65 So.2d 849 (Fla.1953). . . .

CRIGGER v. FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION,, 436 So. 2d 937 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . See e.g., § 689.01, Fla.Stat. (1981). . See e.g., § 695.01, Fla.Stat. (1981). . Downing v. . . .

L. PEACOCK T. v. AMERICAN AGRONOMICS CORPORATION, a, 422 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . the agreements were unwitnessed and, therefore, not executed with the formalities required by section 689.01 . . .

In F. A. M. I. SERVICE SYSTEMS, INC. BRESLER MALLS, INC. a v. F. A. M. I. SERVICE SYSTEMS, INC., 19 B.R. 30 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1982)

. . . Florida Statute Section 689.01. Such requirements were not present in the putative assignment. . . .

POLISHUK, v. CAIDIN,, 411 So. 2d 244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . In response to the wife’s affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds, § 689.01, Fla.Stat. (1979), the . . .

In BELIZE AIRWAYS LIMITED, D. SEIDLE, v. AEROSERVICE INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED,, 12 B.R. 387 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1981)

. . . of Sublease was not signed by BAL in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, as required by Sec. 689.01 . . .

S. PASEKOFF L. a k a J. v. KAUFMAN,, 392 So. 2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . See, Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1977). . . .

ALLENDER, v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION OF TITUSVILLE, a, 389 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Miami, 294 So.2d 11 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), and the assignment meets the witness requirements of section 689.01 . . .

GIRARD, v. Dr. TREMBLAY, 384 So. 2d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . therein] because the said trust agreement did not comply with the Florida statutory requirements [§ 689.01 . . .

BURCH, v. A. BRINKLEY, Jr., 382 So. 2d 440 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . grounds that appellant failed to plead facts in the complaint negativing the application of Sections 689.01 . . . The trial judge was correct in ruling that § 689.01 controls the validity of the modification of the . . .

BARBER, v. W. HATCH, 380 So. 2d 536 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . The evidence does not indicate that this document was signed or witnessed as required by Section 689.01 . . .

E. FORD, v. F. BARNES, 366 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . provisions meant that such a mortgage had to be executed with the formality of a deed as required by § 689.01 . . .

SEGOVIA INVESTMENTS, INC. v. KATOGAS SEGOVIA INVESTMENTS, INC. v. EMERALD PLAZA WEST, INC., 364 So. 2d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . The dismissal of the complaint was proper under Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1977). . . .

M. WALKER v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, C., 360 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . F.S. 689.01 requires that an interest in land be conveyed “by instrument in writing, signed in the presence . . .

CARROLL J. v. K. DOUGHERTY S., 355 So. 2d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . construed to mean that a mortgage had to be executed with the formality of a deed as required by Section 689.01 . . . Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1975), provides that no real estate shall be transferred except by . . . Since there is nothing in Section 689.01 to differentiate homestead realty, the requirement for witnesses . . . upon the “duly executed” provision of the old constitution relating to homesteads and that Section 689.01 . . . We believe we would be overstepping our bounds to decide for policy reasons that Section 689.01 should . . .

BODDEN, d b a Op- v. P. CARBONELL, d b a, 354 So. 2d 927 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Although the lease does not comply with § 689.01, Fla.Stat. (1975) for lack of one witness to the five-year . . .

FLORIDA FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, a v. DENT G. P., 350 So. 2d 481 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . executed in behalf of the Bank by an agent “in the presence of two subscribing witnesses,” Section 689.01 . . .

BLOOM, v. WEISER,, 348 So. 2d 651 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . failing to meet the requirements of the formalities of a deed of conveyance as set forth in Section 689.01 . . .

WICKES CORPORATION, d b a a v. MOXLEY B., 342 So. 2d 839 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . provisions meant that such a mortgage had to be executed with the formality of a deed as required by § 689.01 . . . Wright, 289 So.2d 777 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). . § 689.01, Fla.Stat. (1975). . Koplon v. Smith, supra. . . .

RELIABLE FINANCE COMPANY, a v. C. AXON, 336 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . provisions meant that such a mortgage had to be executed with the formality of a deed as required by § 689.01 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. FOERSTER,, 335 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1976)

. . . ineffectual, it being uncontroverted that the deed was signed by only one witness in contravention of Section 689.01 . . . estopped from contesting the validity of the deed on the basis that it did not comply with Section 689.01 . . .

SANTOS, v. W. BOGH,, 334 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . witness, whereas the presence thereon of two subscribing witnesses was essential to its validity under § 689.01 . . . of an interest in the property, because it did not have two subscribing witnesses as required by § 689.01 . . .

FIRST GULF BEACH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, v. GRUBAUGH,, 330 So. 2d 205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . real property, the enforcing of this alleged oral agreement would be violative of Fla.Stat., Secs. 689.01 . . .

W. v. D. a k a E. Jr., 323 So. 2d 35 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . § 689.01; Parken v. Stafford, 48 Fla. 290, 37 So. 567 (1904); First National Bank of Leesburg v. . . .

TAYLOR, d b a v. H. ROSMAN,, 312 So. 2d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . § 689.01, F.S.A. because on the face of the agreement only one subscribing witness to the signature . . . Further, we hold that the appellee is estopped to defeat the second lease agreement by asserting Section 689.01 . . .

CARROLL J. v. K. DOUGHERTY S., 302 So. 2d 439 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . must, to be specifically enforceable, be signed in the presence of two witnesses as required by Sec. 689.01 . . .

EPSTEIN, v. DEERFIELD BEACH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a S., 280 So. 2d 690 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . Hence, according to the Bank, the deed did not satisfy the formal requirements of either § 689.01 or . . .

CON- DEV OF VERO BEACH, INC. a v. V. CASANO M., 272 So. 2d 203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . (c) Improper execution of the contract sued on under F.S. 689.01, F.S.A. . . . All were erroneously stricken except (c), improper execution of the contract under § 689.01, F.S. 1969 . . . Section 689.01 provides: “689.01 How real estate conveyed.— No estate or interest of freehold, . . . . . . This defense was immaterial and, therefore, properly stricken as Section 689.01 applies to conveyances . . . classes, defendant’s affirmative defense that the contract was not witnessed as required by Section 689.01 . . .

E. KOPLON, v. SMITH, 271 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1972)

. . . . § 689.01, F.S.A. The specific performance was decreed after appellant-owner’s failure to close. . . . There is bare language in Radabatigh reciting the requirement of execution with the formalities of § 689.01 . . .

H. J. KRONER, A. De La v. ESTEVES G., 245 So. 2d 141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . That Florida Statute 689.01 requires that the contract for the sale of real property must be ‘signed . . . the sale of real property to be enforceable must be executed with the formality required by F.S. § 689.01 . . . Diedrich, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 120, the Supreme Court of Florida said, “We think that Sec. 689.01, supra . . . contract is for the sale of real property and the contract is not executed in conformity with F.S. § 689.01 . . . otherwise complete and lawful but does not have the requisite number of witnesses to conform to F.S. § 689.01 . . .

TINO v. OUTDOOR MEDIA, INC. a, 242 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . The lease was defective also because not witnessed as required by § 689.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . .

G. RADABAUGH v. W. WARE A., 241 So. 2d 738 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Section 689.01, Florida Statutes 1967, F.S.A., provides in part: “No estate or interest of freehold * . . . Section 689.01, F.S.A. Petersen v. Brotman, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 821. . . . Section 689.01, F.S.A. . . .

GRIZZARD, v. HESS OIL COMPANY, 33 Fla. Supp. 128 (Lake Cty. Cir. Ct. 1970)

. . . . §§689.01 and 725.01); and signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the lessor (if a natural . . . S. §689.01; Gill v. Livingston, 158 Fla. 577, 29 So.2d 631; Reed v. . . .

R. FIXEL, v. J. STEINGOLD, 226 So. 2d 269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

. . . See § 725.01 and § 689.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Affirmed. . . .

ROSS v. RICHTER, 187 So. 2d 653 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . Sec. 689.01 F.S.A. . Sec. 731.07 F.S.A. . Cross v. . . .

BLUMIN v. W. ELLIS, Jr. a, 186 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . Neither oitr Statute of Frauds — § 725.01, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., nor our Recording Act — § 689.01, Fla.Stats . . .

ABC LIQUORS, INC. a v. M. ATHANASON A., 184 So. 2d 521 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . Section 689.01, F.S.A., requires that an interest in land of a term of more than one year may be conveyed . . .

COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, v. BARNES, 179 So. 2d 251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

. . . Section 689.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides in effect that no estate or interest in land may be . . . 97 So.2d 860, 862; Article X, section 4, Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A.; and section 689.01 . . .

L. HAGAN, L. v. LARAGIONE,, 170 So. 2d 69 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

. . . real property, the enforcing of this alleged oral agreement would be violative of Fla.Stat., Secs. 689.01 . . .

McBRYDE, v. S. S. LOWE, Jr. W., 163 So. 2d 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

. . . Sec. 689.01, Fla.Stat., F.S. . . . Admittedly, if such were the case, the assignment would not have to comply with Sec. 689.01, and it would . . . This lease, being for a term of more than one year, comes within the purview of Sec. 689.01. . . . Sec. 689.01, Florida Statutes 1941 (5662 C.G.L.1927; Section 5, Chapter 20954, Laws of Florida, 1941) . . . Admittedly, this interest in the fee does not come within the provisions of Sec. 689.01, as it arose . . .

CANTOR, v. PALMER S. E., 163 So. 2d 508 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

. . . interest in said real property, certain or uncertain, to the Plaintiff, in the manner required by Section 689.01 . . .