SAC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MILAM DAIRY ASSOCIATES, A FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
SAC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
MILAM DAIRY ASSOCIATES, A FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
481 So. 2d 28
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1985)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We do not agree with appellant’s contentions that, in two respects, the trial court erred in setting aside portions of an arbitrator’s award on the ground that they were unauthorized by the underlying agreement. See School Board of Seminole County v. Cornelison, 406 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 421 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1982). Likewise, we find no merit in the claim on cross-appeal that another aspect of the award was beyond the issues submitted to arbitration. See 6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 109 (1975); cf. Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.190(b). Accordingly, the judgment under review, in its entirety, is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Noriega v. Schnurmacher Holding, Inc., 528 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…n that the statutorily enumerated grounds for vacating an arbitration award are absent here. We also reject Noriega’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in contravention of section 682.13(1)(c). See SAC Constr. Co. v. Milam Dairy Assocs., 481 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); School Bd. of Seminole Coun [*31] ty v. Cornelison, 406 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 421 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1982). However, we find that both the trial court and the arbitrator misapplied section 212.031, thereby cons…
Authorities Cited
- The Sch. Bd. OF Seminole Cnty. v. Lynette T. Cornelison & the Seminole Educ. Ass'n, 406 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)