Cases from cite.case.law:

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

. . . See § 689.11, Fla. Stat.; Hunt v. Covington, 145 Fla. 706, 200 So. 76 (1941). . . .

CLEMONS Jr. v. M. THORNTON,, 993 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Like the provision on the books today, section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1993), allowed conveyances of . . .

LOWE, v. BROWARD COUNTY,, 766 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . § 689.11); the right to rehabilitative or permanent alimony in a proceeding for the dissolution of . . .

N. NORDMAN, v. E. McCORMICK,, 715 So. 2d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The trial court erred in invoking section 689.11, Florida .Statutes (1995) to validate the 1917 deed . . .

V. SIGMUND, Jr. C. v. ELDER, Sr. V., 631 So. 2d 329 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . must reject appellants’ argument that the void deed of 1962 is resurrected by operation of section 689.11 . . . While it is true that there is no mention in section 689.11 of a requirement that both spouses must join . . .

In WARE, a k a d b a WARE, a k a d b a v. MI, Su Mi,, 99 B.R. 103 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989)

. . . . § 689.11, cf. Russell at 193. The Court distinguishes this case from Bendl v. . . .

C. CHAPMAN, v. CHAPMAN, M. III,, 526 So. 2d 131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . retroactively to affect the 1955 deed at issue in this case, see Robbins, 411 So.2d at 1025, nor can section 689.11 . . .

In MANICURE, In RINGLEY,, 29 B.R. 248 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1983)

. . . Florida Statute § 689.11(1), as amended, provides in pertinent part: (1) ... an estate by the entirety . . .

L. NELSON, v. L. BOYER L., 412 So. 2d 31 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . The deed was executed pursuant to section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1961), in an effort to create an . . . Even though the deed was executed pursuant to section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1961), which permits . . .

ROBBINS v. ROBBINS, 411 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . In addition, we reject appellees argument that section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1981) modifies the constitutional . . .

E. STOTTLEMYER, v. E. STOTTLEMYER,, 386 So. 2d 858 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Thus, the provision of Section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes (1977), to the contrary was declared unconstitutional . . .

J. JAMESON v. JAMESON, II,, 387 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1980)

. . . article X, section 4(c), of the Florida Constitution, to require spouse joinder and declared section 689.11 . . . owned homestead property to the husband and wife as tenants by the entirety, and find that section 689.11 . . . construction and interpretation of the constitutional provision is in complete harmony with section 689.11 . . .

J. JAMESON v. JAMESON, II,, 369 So. 2d 436 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . However, the Legislature enacted Section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes (1971), which provided as follows . . . Section 689.11(1), supra, appears' to negate the constitutional provision requiring joinder by the spouse . . . ruling to the Supreme Court it reversed the District Court and upheld the constitutionality of Section 689.11 . . .

ROBBINS v. ROBBINS, 360 So. 2d 10 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Appellees/defendants argue that subsection 2 of Section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1977) validates the . . . Accordingly, we hold that Section 689.11(2) does not apply to a homestead deed which is void ab initio . . . If we applied Section 689.11(2) as suggested by appellees, we would abrogate the constitutional protection . . .

LIBERMAN M. v. KELSO,, 354 So. 2d 137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . See Section 689.11, Florida Statutes (1975); cf. Meyer v. Faust, 83 So.2d 847 (Fla.1955). . . .

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

. . . District Court of Appeal reported at 300 So.2d 33 (Fla.App. 1st 1974), which declared part of Section 689.11 . . . the deed was valid even if she did not join her husband in its execution by the operation of Section 689.11 . . . We agree with the appellant that the District Court erred in holding Section 689.11, Florida Statutes . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, v. LOWERY,, 333 So. 2d 495 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . Defendants concede also that under Section 689.11, Florida Statutes, a conveyance by husband to wife . . .

M. VAZQUEZ v. SANTISTEBAN, 334 So. 2d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . Section 689.11 of the Florida Statutes authorizes a direct conveyance from a husband to himself and his . . .

FOERSTER, v. FOERSTER,, 300 So. 2d 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . was valid even if she did not join her husband in the execution of the deed by operation of Section 689.11 . . . Prior to the enactment of Chapter 71-54, Laws of Florida, 1971, Section 689.11(1), Florida Statutes, . . .

In ESTATE W. HILEY,, 262 So. 2d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . The current statute referred to is Ch. 689.11, F.S.1969, F.S.A. . . .

D. HODGSON, v. N. A. HOTARD, d b a, 436 F.2d 1110 (5th Cir. 1971)

. . . . § 689.11(1), (3). . . .

H. MOORE v. E. MOORE,, 237 So. 2d 217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Section 689.11(1), F.S.A., permitting creation of estates by the entireties by deed from husband to wife . . . Section 689.11, F.S.A., Conveyances between husband and wife direct.— (1) A conveyance of real estate . . .

SNOW, v. MATHEWS, a, 190 So. 2d 50 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

. . . . § 689.11 by permitting direct conveyances between husband and wife, including property held in estate . . .

MEDWIN BENJAMIN, D B A BENJAMIN S FOR MOTORS MEDWIN BENJAMIN, D B A MILL BASIN REPAIR COMPANY AND MEDWIN BENJAMIN, INDIVIDUALLY v. THE UNITED STATES, 172 Ct. Cl. 118 (Cl. Ct. 1965)

. . . purchase from WAA (sales document 2508365) a fourth group of 82 identical engines at a unit price of $689.11 . . .

B. MOOREFIELD, v. M. BYRNE, Jr. A., 140 So. 2d 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

. . . Section 689.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., permitting creation of estates by the entireties by deed from a husband . . .

V. REED M. v. FAIN,, 145 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1961)

. . . Section 689.11, F.S.A.) is not applicable to “homestead real estate”. . . .

LITTLE RIVER BANK TRUST COMPANY, D. A. v. M. EASTMAN,, 105 So. 2d 912 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)

. . . Section 689.11, Fla. . . .

M. SCHULER, v. CLAUGHTON, N. N. Jr., 248 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1957)

. . . Shortly thereafter the Florida Legislature passed Section 689.11 of Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which codified . . . There is no question under Section 689.11 that one spouse can convey to another an interest in real property . . . But the contention of the plaintiff herein is that the amendment to Section 689.11 passed by the Legislature . . . “When Section 689.11 of Florida Statutes was passed in its original form in 1941, without any mention . . .

WILLIAM ESTEP DORA L. ESTEP, v. MARIE WERNER HERRING, 154 Fla. 653 (Fla. 1944)

. . . his wife amounted to a severance of the lots so described from the homestead and that under Section 689.11 . . . We do not think Section 689.11, Florida Statutes, 1941, affects the conveyance of the homestead property . . .