CHATFIELD DEAN & CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID B. KESLER AND THE OFFICES OF DAVID B. KESLER, P.A., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Chatfield Dean appeals a trial court judgment confirming an arbitration award and granting attorney's and expert witness fees to Kesler. The court reverses the fee award because the underlying arbitration award did not specify the legal theory upon which Kesler prevailed, but affirms confirmation of the arbitration award itself.
The trial court lacked a basis to grant attorney's fees because the arbitration award did not specify the theory upon which Kesler had prevailed. Therefore, the portions of the final judgment awarding attorney's and expert witness fees are reversed, but the portion confirming the arbitration award is affirmed.
[1] Attorney's fees may not be awarded when an arbitration award fails to specify on which claim the prevailing party prevailed, especially when some claims permit fees and o…
[2] An arbitration award that does not indicate the theory upon which a party prevailed is inadequate and subject to correction.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court did not have a basis upon which to grant attorney's fees because the arbitration award did not specify the theory upon which Kesler had prevailed.”
Establishes the dispositive issue: absence of a specified legal theory in the award prevents fee awards in confirmation proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1991, Kesler became a customer of brokerage firm Chatfield Dean. Disputes arose regarding stock trades, leading to arbitration. On March 5, 1996, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees In Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Chatfield Dean & Co., Inc. (Chatfield Dean), a brokerage firm, appeals the trial court’s final judgment confirming an arbitration award and granting attorney’s and experts’ witness fees to David B. Kesler and the Law Offices of David B. Kesler, P.A. (cumulatively referred to as Kesler). We reverse the final judgment to the extent that it granted attorney’s and experts’ witness fees to Kesler. In 1991, Kesler became a Chatfield Dean customer. Disputes arose regarding certain stock trades which led the parties to arbitration. On March 5, 1996, Kesler obtained an arbitration award in the amount of $3,836, plus costs. Kesler had asserted both statutory and common law grounds for recovery; however, the arbitration' award failed to state the grounds upon which it was based. Further, the award rendered by the arbitration panel contained a provision expressly rejecting Kesler’s request for attorney’s fees.
Kesler did not seek a clarification of the award.1 Instead, eleven months later, on March 3, 1997, Kesler filed a petition with the trial court seeking to confirm the arbitration award and to procure attorney’s fees. After denying Chatfield Dean’s motion to dismiss the Kesler petition, the trial court confirmed the award and granted $74,9202 in fees.
Chatfield Dean has presented several points on appeal but one dispositive issue mandates reversal. The trial court did not have a basis upon which to grant attorney’s fees because the arbitration award did not specify the theory upon which Kesler had prevailed. See Barron Chase Sec., Inc. v. Moser, 745 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). For this reason, we reverse the portions of the final judgment awarding attorney’s and experts’ fees but affirm the portion confirming the arbitration award.
Reversed in part; affirmed in part.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur. . It is arguable that Kesler’s failure to timely seek relief to either vacate or modify the arbitration award foreclosed the petition for attorney’s fees in this case. See Sachs v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 584 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We decline to address that point in light of the dispositive issue on which this case turns.
. This amount included both the attorney's fees incurred in obtaining the arbitration award and the experts' fees incurred in obtaining the attorney's fee award.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kesler v. Chatfield Dean & Co., 794 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2001)…ANSTEAD, J. A petition for jurisdiction was filed to review the decision in Chatfield Dean & Co. v. Kesler, 749 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), alleging conflict with Tumberry Associates v. Service Station Aid, Inc., 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1995), and Charbonneau v. Morse Operations, Inc., 727 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Though there was no conflict between Chatfield D…
-
NationsBANC Sec., Inc. v. Lothar Aron and Lotte Aron, 787 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ess costly. These results are consistent with the legislative scheme that encourages prompt and final resolution of disputes. For these reasons, we decline to adopt the interpretation suggested by the Arons. Cf. Chatfield Dean & Co., Inc. v. Kesler, 749 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 767 So. 2d 458 (Fla.2000) Reversed with instructions to strike the award of attorney’s fees. BLUE, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur. . Section 682.12, Florida Statutes (1995), provides: Confirmation of an award. Upon…
-
Chatfield Dean & Co., Inc. v. Kesler, 818 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…. Chatfield Dean & Co., 794 So. 2d 577 (Fla.2001) (Chatfield Dean II). In this court’s earlier decision, we determined that Kesler was not entitled to att [*573] orney's fees arising out of an arbitration proceeding. Chatfield Dean & Co. v. Kesler, 749 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (Chatfield Dean I). We did so in reliance upon this court’s decision in Barron Chase Securities, Inc. v. Moser, 745 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (Moser I). The supreme court subsequently quashed the Moser I decision. Moser v. Bar…
Authorities Cited
- Barron Chase Sec., Inc. v. Moser, 745 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Simmons v. State, 584 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Sachs v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 584 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)