In short: The Third DCA held that Florida’s statute of frauds did not bar unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims over an oral real estate deal, reversing their dismissal. It upheld dismissal of the oral joint venture claim because there was no agreement that the defendant would share in net profits from the sale.
The Facts
Danelia Gomez and Odell Landeros sued Carlos Gomez over a piece of real property. Their amended complaint had three counts. Count I said Carlos breached an oral joint venture agreement covering buying, maintaining and selling the property. Counts II and III asked for equitable relief and a constructive trust on the theory that he had been unjustly enriched.
Nothing was in writing. Relying only on the statute of frauds, the Miami-Dade circuit court dismissed all three counts with prejudice, and the plaintiffs appealed.
The Decision
The Third District split the result. On Count I, it agreed the joint venture claim failed. Joint ventures to develop and sell real estate for profit generally fall outside the statute of frauds, but a joint venture requires, among other things, an agreement to share profits. The allegations showed no agreement that Carlos would share in the net profits of the sale, so there was no joint venture to enforce.
On Counts II and III, the court reversed. Unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims are not barred by the statute of frauds, so they should not have been dismissed on that ground. The case went back to the trial court, and the panel expressly took no position on whether those claims would succeed.
The Law
Florida’s statute of frauds, section 725.01, says no lawsuit may be brought on a contract for the sale of land, or any interest in land, unless it is in writing and signed by the party being sued. That is why handshake real estate deals, even between family members, are so hard to enforce as contracts. Courts have long recognized an exception for true joint ventures to buy and resell real estate for profit, but only if every element of a joint venture is present, including shared profits (and, under Florida Supreme Court precedent, shared losses).
Equitable claims are different. Unjust enrichment asks whether one person received a benefit that it would be unfair to keep without paying for it. A constructive trust is a remedy that treats the holder of property as holding it for the person who in fairness should have it. Because these claims do not seek to enforce the oral promise as a contract, the statute of frauds does not block them.
Current law (2026): Section 725.01 cited in the opinion as the 2017 version; text is unchanged in the 2026 Florida Statutes (last amended 1998).
Lessons
- Put family real estate deals in writing. Without a signed writing, the oral agreement itself is usually unenforceable under section 725.01.
- If there is no writing, plead in the alternative. Unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims can survive where a contract claim cannot.
- Calling it a joint venture is not enough. You must allege all the elements, including an agreement to share profits.
- Surviving dismissal is not winning. The equitable claims still have to be proven on remand.
Source: Gomez v. Gomez, No. 3D22-1319 — Fla. 3d DCA (May 24, 2023).
Watch the Oral Argument
This is the recording of the actual oral argument, posted on the channel. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
No Writing, No Problem? Family Land Deal vs. Statute of Frauds | Gomez v. Gomez, 3D22-1319
Go Deeper
- "Mom Promised Me the House": Why Promised Inheritances Usually Fail in Florida
- Fighting Over the House in Florida Probate: Stopping a Sale, Multiple Heirs, and Partition
- Why Families Fight Over Inheritance in Florida, and How to Keep It Out of Court
Frequently Asked Questions
Is an oral agreement to buy or share real estate enforceable in Florida?
Generally not as a contract. Section 725.01 requires a signed writing for contracts to sell land or interests in land. But, as Gomez v. Gomez shows, a party may still pursue equitable claims like unjust enrichment or a constructive trust, which the statute of frauds does not bar.
Does the statute of frauds apply to a real estate joint venture?
Florida courts generally hold that it does not apply to joint ventures to develop and sell real estate for profit. But the joint venture must actually exist, with all its elements, including shared profits. In Gomez, there was no agreement that the defendant would share net profits, so the claim failed.
What is a constructive trust in a Florida property dispute?
It is an equitable remedy where a court declares that someone holding title holds it for another person who, in fairness, should have it, often because of a broken promise and unjust enrichment. Gomez holds that such claims are not barred by the statute of frauds.
Can I sue a family member who kept property we agreed to share without a written contract?
Possibly, under equitable theories like unjust enrichment or constructive trust, if you contributed money or work and they would unfairly keep the benefit. A contract claim based only on the oral promise will usually fail under the statute of frauds. Act promptly, since limitations periods apply.
Talk to a Florida real estate litigation lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. handles Florida real estate disputes, title problems and appeals from St. Petersburg. If you need a real estate litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: every Florida statute and court rule is on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
