Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 725.01 (2025)
Promise to pay another’s debt, etc.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
725.01 Promise to pay another’s debt, etc.—No action shall be brought whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer or pay any debt or damages out of her or his own estate, or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage, or upon 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, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, or whereby to charge any health care provider upon any guarantee, warranty, or assurance as to the results of any medical, surgical, or diagnostic procedure performed by any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or dentist licensed under chapter 466, 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.
History.—s. 10, Nov. 15, 1828; RS 1995; GS 2517; RGS 3872; CGL 5779; s. 10, ch. 75-9; s. 933, ch. 97-102; s. 60, ch. 97-264; ss. 227, 294, ch. 98-166.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 388
cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Topp, Inc. v. Uniden Am. Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
Topp, Inc. v. Uniden Am. Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (S.D. Fla. 2007). “She found that of the two potentially applicable Florida Statutes of Frauds, Fla. Stat. § 725.01 , 2 the general *1193 statute, and § 672.”
DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC, 112 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 2013). “See § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (2012). Nearly fifty years ago, in Tanenbaum v.”
Eclipse Med., Inc. v. Am. Hydro-Surgical Instruments, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 1999). “Fla. Stat. § 725.01 (1993); Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla.”
Collier v. Brooks, 632 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “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…”
Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “[2] Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), Florida's statute of frauds, provides in pertinent part: "No action shall be brought .”
Socarras v. Claughton Hotels, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). “NOTES [1] Codified under § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (1977). [2] § 725.01, Fla.”
Rohlfing v. Tomorrow Realty & Auction Co., Inc., 528 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). “[3] In relevant part, the Statute of Frauds (§ 725.01, Fla. Stat.) provides that: No action shall be brought .”
India Am. Trading, Co., Inc. v. White, 896 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). “See also § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (2004); Alvarez v. Alvarez, 800 So.”
Howard Browning v. Lynn Anne Poirier, 165 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 2015). “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.”
Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Motorcycle Info. Network, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (M.D. Fla. 2005). “Section 725.01, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: No action shall be brought .”
PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Constr., N.V., 598 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2010). “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 . A question the case law and treatises have not answered, as far as we can tell, is whether the district court, after ruling for the…”
LynkUs Commc'ns, Inc. v. WebMD Corp., 965 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “§ 725.01, Fla. Stat. (2000). "The statute of frauds grew out of a purpose to intercept the frequency and success of actions based on nothing more than loose verbal statements or mere innuendos.”
— 725.01(1) — 1 case
All Seasons Resorts v. DEPT. OF BUS. REG., 455 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.