Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners' Ass'n, 118 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners' Ass'n, 118 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …as a basic derivative of the principle that a third-party beneficiary steps into the shoes of a contracting party and is subject to all provisions of the contract, a third-party beneficiary of a contract containing an arbitration provision can be compelled to arbitrate. ✓
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gomez v. Allied Professionals Insurance Company (flsd, 2020-05-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Gomez v. Allied Professionals Insurance Company
S.D. Fla. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
as a basic derivative of the principle that a third-party beneficiary steps into the shoes of a contracting party and is subject to all provisions of contract, a third-party beneficiary of a contract containing an arbitration provision can be compelled to arbitrate.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cartagena v. Martino-Villanueva
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay At Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 118 So. 3d 957, 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (nonsignatory homeowners compelled to arbitrate claim based on preexisting contract between builder and homeowners’ association).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anderson v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
The Builder also cites to Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Ass’n, 118 So.3d 957, 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), in which this court recognized that statutory claims for violation, of a building code can be subject to arbitration.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Juan Mendez, Jr., etc. v. Hampton Court Nursing Center, LLC. (2×)
Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
Further, the Second District recently held, in Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 118 So. 3d 957, 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), that third-party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitrate.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joanne Kong v. Allied Professional Insurance Company
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
E.g., Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 118 So.3d 957, 958 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2013) (compelling nonsignatory homeowners to arbitrate a claim arising under a preexisting contract between a builder and a homeowners’ association).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." William J. Osborne and Amanda L. Osborne v. Drees Homes of Florida, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See id.; see also Seifert, 750 So. 2d at 638 (“[T]he determination of whether a particular claim must be submitted to arbitration necessarily depends on the existence of some nexus between the dispute and the contract containing the arbitration clause.”). 3 We distinguish Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 118 So. 3d 957, 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), because the Limited Warranty’s arbitration agreement did not encompass the Osbornes’ statutory claim. 7 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gunson v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.
S.D. Fla. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Vencor Hosps. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 169 F.3d 677, 680, n. 5 (11th Cir.1999) (applying Florida law and holding that plaintiff was third party beneficiary of contract and that it was "irrelevant” that plaintiff was not identified specifically in the contract); see also Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 118 So.3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PULTE HOME CORPORATION
v.
BAY AT CYPRESS CREEK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
No. 2D13-316.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Aug 9, 2013.
118 So. 3d 957
2013 WL 4033989
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12484
Theodore D. Estes and Collin W. McLeod of Divine & Estes, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant., Alan E. Tannenbaum and Melissa Karp Elsbree of Tannenbaum Hanewich, P.L., Sarasota, for Appellee.
Silberman, Villanti, Wallace.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
WALLACE, Judge.

Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte) seeks review of the circuit court’s order denying its renewed motion to compel arbitration of an action brought by Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (the HOA), for alleged building code violations under section 553.84, Florida Statutes (2011).[1] We reverse the order under review on the authority of Pulte Home Corp. v. Vermillion Homeowners Ass’n, 109 So.3d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

The HOA made a tactical decision to plead its amended complaint as an action based on a statutory violation instead of as an action for breach of warranty. The HOA argues that it cannot be compelled to arbitrate its statutory claim. We disagree. The agreement to arbitrate applies to statutory claims as well as to claims for breach of warranty. See Reeves v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 937 So.2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (requiring the arbitration of a claim under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So.2d 259, 261-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (noting that claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act may be submitted to arbitration); Beazer Homes Corp. v. Bailey, 940 So.2d 453, 461-62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (same); Aztec Med. Sens., Inc. v. Burger, 792 So.2d 617, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (collecting cases in which statutory claims have been held to be subject to arbitration). We also reject the HOA’s argument that subsequent purchasers of the units at the development are not bound by the arbitration agreement. Because the subsequent purchasers are permitted to assume Pulte’s Limited Warranty in favor of the initial purchasers, the subsequent purchasers are “third party beneficiaries to the Limited Warranty and can be compelled to arbitrate.” Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Cos. v. Pulte Home Corp., 2005 WL 1345779, at *4 (M.D.Fla. June 6, 2005); see also J. Douglas Uloth & J. Hamilton Rial, III, Equitable Estoppel as a Basis for Compelling Nonsignatories to Arbitrate — A Bridge Too Far?, 21 Rev. Litig. 593, 602 (Summer 2002) (“[A]s a basic derivative of the principle that a third-party beneficiary steps into the shoes of a contracting party and is subject to all provisions of contract, a third-party beneficiary of a contract containing an arbitration provision can be compelled to arbitrate.”).

We have considered the HOA’s remaining arguments for affirmance, and we find them to be without merit. The remaining arguments do not warrant discussion.

We reverse the order denying Pulte’s renewed motion to compel arbitration, and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
1

We have jurisdiction in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).