The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
|
||||||
|
WLT/Van Etten first presents three related arguments regarding the underlying nonbinding arbitration proceedings in the trial court. But because WLT/Van Etten is appealing a rule 1.540(b) order and the grounds for relief under that rule are limited, any arguments relating to the nonbinding arbitration rules are relevant only in the context of the grounds for relief under rule 1.540(b). WLT/Van Etten claims that WLT/Brooks committed fraud on the court because WLT/Brooks knew that an arbitrator had determined that the Brookses did not have authority to act on WLT's behalf, a fact which WLT/Van Etten contends that the Brookses concealed from the trial court. But the arbitrator's findings are nonbinding and have not been affirmed. See generally § 44.103, Fla. Stat. (2020); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820. In fact, where a motion for trial de novo is filed, the nonbinding arbitration decision "shall not be made known to the judge who may preside over the case." § 44.103(5). Thus, a trial judge should not be influenced by, or even aware of, the arbitration decision when a motion for trial de novo has been filed.Beyond Billing, Inc., has filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to enter a final judgment on an arbitration award. It claims that the trial court has a ministerial duty to enter the judgment because neither party filed a motion for trial de novo within twenty days after the arbitration award was served on the parties. See § 44.103(5), Fla. Stat. (2021) ("An arbitration decision shall be final if a request for a trial de novo is not filed within the time provided by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court."); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820(h) ("If a motion for trial is not made within 20 days of service on the parties of the decision, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge, who shall enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes."). We deny the petition because within twenty days of the arbitration award, the parties indicated a mutual intention to proceed to trial by executing a joint stipulated motion to amend the case management order.Trial courts may refer civil cases to nonbinding arbitration. § 44.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2020). Once referred, the arbitration decision "shall be final if a request for a trial de novo is not filed within the time provided by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court." § 44.103(5), Fla. Stat. (2020). Rule 1.820(h) provides that "[i]f a motion for trial is not made within 20 days of service on the parties of the decision, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge, who shall enter" an order enforcing the award. Under the rule's plain language, unless a party files a motion for trial de novo within twenty days of the arbitrator's decision, the trial court must enforce the arbitration award. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ortiz, 931 So.2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Connell v. City of Plantation, 901 So.2d 317, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)).The trial court later referred the matter to non-binding arbitration. See § 44.103, Fla. Stat. (2020); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820. American and Swank were the only parties who participated. Ultimately, the arbitrator determined that American owed Swank $220,899.07, plus interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees to be set by the trial court. The arbitrator did not mention Universal Property or Universal Risk in his award; indeed, throughout the award, he referred to American as the only "Defendant."There is no overlap between an order compelling arbitration of a claim pursuant to section 682.03, Florida Statutes ; and a referral to mediation or arbitration under rules of civil procedure like 1.700. The statutory provisions of chapter 682 effectuate a policy that courts uphold and enforce contractual agreements to arbitrate. The mediation and arbitration rules are adjunct to the Legislature's separate policy in favor of voluntary dispute resolution, as set out in chapter 44, Florida Statutes. See, e.g. , § 44.102(1), Fla. Stat. (providing for court-ordered mediation in accordance with "rules of practice and procedure adopted by the Supreme Court"); § 44.103( 1) (providing for court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration in accordance with "rules of practice and procedure adopted by the Supreme Court"); cf. § 44.104, Fla. Stat. (providing for "voluntary binding arbitration" by written agreement, "in lieu of litigation," after a "civil dispute" has arisen). The two processes are mutually exclusive, so the trial court's referral to arbitration under rule 1.700 was in direct contravention of this court's mandate affirming its earlier order compelling arbitration and staying… The Fourth District has observed that the entry of a judgment on a section 44.103 arbitration award is a nondiscretionary, ministerial duty. In Connell v. City of Plantation , 901 So. 2d 317, 318-19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), a plaintiff in a slip and fall case obtained an arbitration award pursuant to a nonbinding arbitration under section 44.103 and neither party requested a trial within twenty days. The plaintiff moved for a final judgment on the award and requested taxable costs, but before the court had entered the judgment, the city paid the arbitration award in full. Id. at 319. The circuit court declined to enter the judgment, reasoning there was nothing further for it to do since the arbitrator's award had been satisfied. Id. The Fourth District reversed.This is an appeal of a final judgment entered on an arbitration decision in favor of appellee after appellant failed to request a trial de novo, pursuant to section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h). The day after the judgment was entered, appellant filed a motion for relief of judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Appellant's counsel claimed that he failed to request the trial de novo because of technical issues with his calendaring system. After a hearing, the trial court determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. The court denied the rule 1.540(b) motion without prejudice, allowing appellant to file an amended motion and to then set the matter for an evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, appellant filed a notice of appeal, appealing the final judgment.The trial court sua sponte referred the case to nonbinding arbitration on February 20, 2019. On April 9, 2019, the arbitrator rendered a decision favorable to the Appellants. UPCIC filed a timely motion for trial de novo pursuant to section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes (2019), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h) on April 29, 2019. One week later, UPCIC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1).On appeal, Irvin contends that the trial court erred by setting off the Arbitration Award by the settlement amounts. In support, he cites section 44.103(5), which provides the following in relevant part:Together, section 44.103 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 govern court-ordered nonbinding arbitration. Section 44.103 prescribes the substance: courts are permitted to refer any contested civil action to nonbinding arbitration. Once a case is referred, an arbitration decision "shall be final if a request for a trial de novo is not [timely] filed." § 44.103(5), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). If a request is not filed, the arbitrator's decision is referred to the presiding judge who enters such orders and judgments as required to carry out the terms of the decision. Id. If a request is filed, section 44.103 provides for fee shifting in the event a requesting plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment at least twenty-five percent less, or a requesting defendant twenty-five percent more, than the judgment. § 44.103(6), Fla. Stat.. . . Thus, before the court could invoke the nonbinding arbitration statute, section 44.103, Florida Statutes . . . and Hire Us agree that the court ordered the parties to nonbinding arbitration pursuant to section 44.103 . . . See § 44.103(2) ("A court, pursuant to rules adopted by the Supreme Court, may refer any contested civil . . .
. . . See § 44.103(2), Fla. . . .
. . . ECF No. 649-6, Tribal Code, Chapter 44, Section 44.103.) . . .
. . . Section 44.103, Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h) provide that a . . . Harold argues that her objection and demand for trial de novo were timely under section 44.103 and rules . . . Section 44.103 sets forth the process for court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration. . . . Thus, section 44.103(5) and rule 1.820(h) provide a party twenty days after service of the arbitrator . . . We are not persuaded by these arguments because neither section 44.103(5) nor rule 1.820(h) provides . . .
. . . At a hearing, Quail Pointe argued that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 and section 44.103, Florida . . . Nonbinding arbitration is governed substantively by section 44.103, Florida Statutes, and procedurally . . . parties, unless a motion for trial de novo is timely filed after the arbitration decision is served. § 44.103 . . .
. . . moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to their proposal for settlement which was rejected and section 44.103 . . . parties and that Appellees/Cross-Appellants were entitled to attorney’s fees under sections 768.79 and 44.103 . . . Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees that Appel- lees/Cross-Appellants were also entitled to fees under section 44.103 . . . the trial court should determine the amount owed to Appellees/Cross-Appel-lants pursuant to section 44.103 . . .
. . . Saltzman argues that section 44.103(6), Florida Statutes (2002), requires the trial court to award attorney . . . Saltzman subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 44.103(6), which the trial . . . Section 44.103(6), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that “[t]he party having filed for a trial de novo . . . Saltz-man suggests that such an interpretation of section 44.103(6) effectuates the statute’s purpose . . . Section 44.103(6) was amended effective October 1, 2007. . . .
. . . arbitration that the court itself can order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 and section 44.103 . . .
. . . moved for the imposition of attorney’s fees against Moghaddam and 330545 Donuts, Inc. under section 44.103 . . . the corporate plaintiff, Moghaddam was not a “party” or a “plaintiff’ within the meaning of section 44.103 . . . Statutes authorizing awards of attorney’s fees, such as section 44.103(6), are in derogation of common . . . Its reasoning does not apply to a section 44.103(6) scenario. . . . Section 44.103(6) is directed at the miscalculation of the strength of a case after an arbitration award . . .
. . . attorney’s fees incurred during court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration conducted pursuant to section 44.103 . . . The trial court ordered the parties to nonbinding arbitration pursuant to section 44.103, which, in 2004 . . . raising it before agreeing to entitlement, and that a claim for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 44.103 . . . There is certainly no way for a litigant to know in advance whether the fee-shifting provision of 44.103 . . . Just as the Second District found with section 768.79 in Tampa Letter Carriers, section 44.103 seems . . . I would reverse the award of fees under § 44.103(6) for failure to file a pleading in the court case . . . All either party need have done to preserve a right to fees under § 44.103(6) was, upon the entry of . . . the order requiring arbitration under § 44.103(2), promptly file a written notice in the court file of . . .
. . . nonbinding arbitration on all issues, including attorney’s fees and costs, in accordance with section 44.103 . . . to Non-Binding Arbitration Award (“Motion for Entry of Judgment”), arguing that pursuant to section 44.103 . . . Section 44.103(2), Florida Statutes (2006), authorizes a court to “refer any contested civil action filed . . . orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103 . . . Section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes (2006), provides in relevant part as follows: The arbitration decision . . .
. . . Whitfield also moved for the award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 44.103(6), Florida . . . is this — when considering a prevailing party’s entitlement to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 44.103 . . . However, as of October 1, 2007, section 44.103(6) was amended to read (in applicable part): Upon motion . . . section 44.103(6) relates to procedure or remedies, or instead, is substantive in nature. . . . While he concedes that the intent of section 44.103(6) is to encourage parties to accept the results . . .
. . . Sealord also moved for fees and costs incurred subsequent to the arbitration award, pursuant to section 44.103 . . . Sealord moved for all fees and costs incurred subsequent to the arbitration award, pursuant to section 44.103 . . .
. . . See § 44.103(5), Fla. Stat. (2005). Ms. . . .
. . . See § 44.103, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .
. . . Because the trial court erred in determining that section 44.103(6), Florida Statutes (2005), precludes . . . Case No. 2D07-897 Midway argues that the trial court erred in ruling that section 44.103(6) precludes . . . Section 44.103 addresses court-ordered nonbinding arbitration. . . . Thus, section 44.103(6) provides a vehicle for awarding attorney’s fees against a party who filed for . . . There are no Florida cases discussing the application of section 44.103(6) to an award of attorney’s . . .
. . . orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103 . . .
. . . an insurance contract dispute was referred to non-binding arbitration under Florida Statutes section 44.103 . . .
. . . In due course the trial court entered an order requiring nonbinding arbitration under section 44.103( . . . Nonbinding arbitration under section 44.103 is meant to be just that — nonbinding. . . .
. . . Ortiz, 931 So.2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Pursuant to section 44.103(2), Florida Statutes (2005 . . . 259, 260 -261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“An arbitrator’s decision in nonbinding arbitration under section 44.103 . . .
. . . Under section 44.103(2), Florida Statutes (2006), a court “may refer any contested civil action filed . . . contempt powers of the court, and for which judgments execution shall issue on request of a party.” § 44.103 . . . still must “enter such orders and judgments as are required to carry out the terms of the decision.” § 44.103 . . . See § 44.103, Fla. Stat. (2006); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820. . . .
. . . Section 44.103, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, 5) The arbitration decision shall be presented . . . shall enter such orders and judgments as are required to carry out the terms of the decision.... § 44.103 . . . orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103 . . .
. . . Ziccarelli noticed the case for trial, the trial court ordered the case to arbitration pursuant to section 44.103 . . . See § 44.103(5), Fla. . . . Section 44.103(5) states that the time limit for filing a request for a trial de novo shall be established . . .
. . . motion for trial complies with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h) if it is filed after a section 44.103 . . . parties’ agreement, the trial judge referred the case to non-binding arbitration pursuant to section 44.103 . . . See § 44.103(5), Fla. Stat. (2004); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820(h). . . . The legal framework for this case derives from section 44.103 and rule 1.820, which created the procedure . . . Section 44.103(5) states that an “arbitration decision shall be final if a request for a trial de novo . . .
. . . Chapter 44, Florida Statutes (2004), authorizes a court to order nonbinding arbitration, § 44.103, and . . . modification, or correction of arbitration award within 90 days after delivery of copy of award); § 44.103 . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 44.103(2), Florida Statutes (2005), a court “may refer any contested civil action . . . shall enter such orders and judgments as are required to carry out the terms of the decision.... ” § 44.103 . . . Here, the entire case was referred to nonbinding arbitration pursuant to Florida Statutes section 44.103 . . . We find nothing in section 44.103 that restricts the issues the arbitrator may determine during arbitration . . . determined by the arbitrator when a trial court refers a case to nonbinding arbitration pursuant to section 44.103 . . .
. . . appeal, on remand, the circuit court ordered the parties to non-binding arbitration pursuant to section 44.103 . . .
. . . orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decisions as provided by section 44.103 . . .
. . . The trial court referred the case for non-binding arbitration pursuant to section 44.103, Florida Statutes . . . Neither party requested a trial de novo within the twenty days provided by section 44.103(5), Florida . . .
. . . The court ordered the parties to attend nonbinding arbitration, pursuant to section 44.103, Florida Statutes . . . See § 44.103(5), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . Section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes, sets forth the duties of a trial court following an arbitrator’s . . . While section 44.103(6) discusses the assessment of fees and costs when the award is challenged, the . . . Nothing in section 44.103 prevents us from doing so. . . .
. . . Sarkis does not prohibit the use of a contingency risk multiplier in a fee awarded pursuant to section 44.103 . . . The plaintiff maintains section 44.103, unlike section 768.79, contains no specific enumerated factors . . . we hold a court may not apply a contingency risk multiplier when awarding fees, pursuant to section 44.103 . . . However, because the Florida Supreme Court did not address section 44.103 in Sarkis, and we deem this . . . MAY A COURT APPLY A CONTINGENCY RISK MULTIPLIER IN AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO SECTION 44.103 . . .
. . . Section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes (2003), states in pertinent part: If no request for trial de novo . . .
. . . Section 44.103, Florida Statutes (2003), entitled “Court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration,” authorizes . . . If a motion for trial is not filed the trial court “shall” enter a judgment. § 44.103(5), Fla. . . . The entire argument advanced by respondents is that, based on the plain language of section 44.103(5) . . .
. . . entered an order directing all the parties to participate in nonbinding arbitration pursuant to section 44.103 . . . of the defendants, Southeast Service, filed a timely motion-for a trial de novo pursuant to section 44.103 . . . impression as to whether a party who has participated in nonbinding arbitration can limit a séction 44.103 . . . Levine, 736 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999): [W]e can find nothing in section 44.103 that requires a trial . . . de novo when reviewing a trial court’s decision relating to a motion for trial pursuant to section 44.103 . . .
. . . Felix then filed a timely motion for jury trial de novo under Florida Statutes section 44.103 (2002) . . . contempt powers of the court, and for which judgments execution shall issue on request of a party.” § 44.103 . . . orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103 . . .
. . . judicial circuit shall establish the compensation of arbitrators subject to the limitations in section 44.103 . . . commence and adjourn the arbitration hearing and carry out other such duties as are prescribed by section 44.103 . . . orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103 . . .
. . . trial court ordered the parties in the injunction case to nonbinding arbitration pursuant to section 44.103 . . . court had the authority to refer the injunction case to nonbinding arbitration pursuant to section 44.103 . . . orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103 . . . Association argues that after the conclusion of nonbinding arbitration conducted pursuant to section 44.103 . . . for a trial de novo of an arbitration award in nonbinding arbitration conducted pursuant to section 44.103 . . .
. . . novo within twenty days of service of the arbitrators’ decision, that decision, pursuant to section 44.103 . . . Section 44.103, Florida Statutes (1999), entitled “Court-ordered Nonbinding Arbitration,” provides in . . . This case presents two questions: first, whether enactment of section 44.103 and the rule implementing . . . or Rule 1.820 are ignored, the trial de novo deadline of section 44.103(4) alone must inflexibly be . . . Alternative Dispute Resolution. . § 44.103(5), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . . Whether or not the trial judge was aware of section 44.103 or rule 1.820(h) is irrelevant. . . . court, the arbitrators, or their opponents, that the non-binding arbitration was subject -to section 44.103 . . . I find nothing in section 44.103 or rule 1.820(h) which even remotely suggests that the decision of the . . .
. . . Under section 44.103, Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.830, a court may . . .
. . . The trial judge ordered the parties to non-binding arbitration under section 44.103, Florida Statutes . . . Plaintiff argues that section 44.103(5) imposes a non-discretionary, mandatory duty to enter judgments . . . [emphasis supplied] We agree with her reading of section 44.103(5). . . . On the merits of the petition, we again refer to the text of section 44.103(5), which in relevant part . . . [emphasis supplied] § 44.103(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .
. . . Relying on section 44.103(6), Florida Statutes (1995), the County asserts that Centex was responsible . . . Section 44.103, the non-binding arbitration statute, provides in relevant part that: (6) The party having . . .
. . . and rules of civil procedure, if an arbitration occurs after a claimant files a lawsuit under section 44.103 . . . See, e.g., §§ 44.103, 44.104, Fla.Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.700, et seq., 1.800, et seq. . . .
. . . adjourn the arbitration hearing and carry out other such duties as are prescribed by section 44.303 44.103 . . .
. . . We see no logical reason why in nonbinding arbitration under section 44.103, Florida Statutes, a judgment . . . An arbitrator’s decision in nonbinding arbitration under section 44.103, Florida Statutes, may be “vacated . . .
. . . See § 44.103(4), Fla. Stat. (1991): rule 1.820(h), Fla.R.Civ.P. See also Klein v. J.L. . . .