ZAGER PLUMBING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JPI NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Zager Plumbing appeals an order denying its motion to stay arbitration after JPI National Construction filed a lien discharge action while simultaneously initiating arbitration proceedings. The court affirms, holding that JPI did not waive its arbitration rights by filing the lien discharge complaint, as this procedure reasonably preserves both the expedited lien-clearing mechanism and the contractual arbitration process.
JPI did not waive its right to arbitration. The procedure of filing a lien discharge complaint while preserving arbitration rights is a reasonable means to invoke the expedited lien-clearing procedure while maintaining the contractual arbitration mechanism for the merits of the dispute.
[1] Filing a complaint to discharge a construction lien under Florida Statutes section 713.21(4) does not waive the right to arbitration when the complaint explicitly reserve…
[2] There is a strong public policy favoring arbitration, and questions concerning the scope or waiver of arbitration rights should be resolved in favor of arbitration.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“All questions concerning the scope or waiver of the right to arbitrate under contracts should be resolved in favor of arbitration rather than against it.”
Establishes the strong public policy favoring arbitration that guides interpretation of waiver questions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJPI National Construction, a general contractor, entered into a subcontract with Zager Plumbing containing an arbitration clause. When Zager was not p…
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 Public Policy Favoring Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Zager Plumbing, Inc. appeals an order denying its motion to stay arbitration. We affirm.
I.
JPI National Construction, Inc., is a general contractor which entered into a subcontract with Zager. The contract contained an arbitration clause. Contending that it had not been paid amounts which were owed under the contract, Zager recorded a construction lien against the owner’s property.
JPI filed a complaint to discharge the lien under subsection 713.21(4), Florida Statutes (1999). Under this statute, the filing of a complaint results in the clerk issuing “a summons to the lienor to show cause within 20 days why his or her lien should not be enforced by action or vacated and canceled of record.” Id. If the lienor fails to show cause, “the court shall forthwith order cancellation of the lien.” Id.
On the first page of the complaint, the general contractor stated:
By this lawsuit, JPI seeks only to remove a cloud against title to the Property as contemplated by Section 713.21, Florida Statutes, relief which is unavailable in an arbitration proceeding. JPI reserves all rights to arbitrate any arbi-trable issue against Zager, and has initiated arbitration proceedings against Za-ger, as evidenced by Exhibit “G”. In the event Zager timely and properly responds to this action, JPI will file a Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration, to the extent such a motion is appropriate under the circumstances.
Attached to the complaint was JPI’s demand for arbitration which it submitted to the American Arbitration Association at the same time that it filed its complaint in circuit court.
In the circuit court proceeding, Zager filed an answer and counterclaim seeking to enforce its construction lien.
Zager also filed a motion to dismiss the arbitration, or stay it. Zager contended that by filing an action in circuit court, JPI had waived the right to arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, and Zager has appealed.
During the proceedings below, JPI obtained a transfer bond under section 713.24, Florida Statutes, and the construction lien has been transferred to the bond.
II.
We agree with the trial court that there has been no waiver of the right to arbitration. This court has acknowledged the important public policy in favor of promptly clearing construction liens from real estate. “Since the assertion of a mechanic’s lien may have a drastic effect upon the use and alienation of real property, the legislature has ... mandated that a mechanic’s lien be promptly litigated.” Matrix Constr. Corp. v. Mecca Constr., Inc., 578 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citation omitted).
There is likewise a strong public policy favoring arbitration. Lapidus v. Arlen Beach Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 394 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). “All questions concerning the scope or waiver of the right to arbitrate under contracts should be resolved in favor of arbitration rather than against it.” Beverly Hills Dev. Corp. v. George Wimpey of Florida, Inc., 661 So. 2d 969, 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
The procedure followed by JPI in this case was a reasonable means to invoke the expedited procedure for clearing liens from real property, while preserving the contractual arbitration mechanism for litigating the merits of the parties’ dispute. Until Zager filed its answer and counterclaim under subsection 713.21(4), it could not be known whether Zager intended to enforce the construction lien or would be content to rest solely on its contractual claim. See Matrix, 578 So. 2d at 389.
We fail to see how Zager is prejudiced by our allowing this procedure. We distinguish the decision in Bonner v. RCC Assocs., Inc., 679 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), as having not involved the mechanism for discharge of lien under subsection 713.21(4).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kolsky v. Jackson Square, LLC, 28 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…etween the claim and the contract containing the arbitration clause. Seifert, 750 So. 2d at 638. All questions concerning the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Zager Plumbing, Inc. v. JPI Nat'l Constr., Inc., 785 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Additionally, when an arbitrable issue exists, a non-signatory may compel a signatory to arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel is warranted when the signatory…
-
Waterhouse Constr. Grp., Inc. v. 5891 SW 64TH St., LLC., 949 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (quoting Roe v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 533 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla.1988)). This court has consistently acknowledged the important public policy in favor of arbitration. See, e.g., Zager Plumbing, Inc. v. JPI Nat’l Constr., Inc., 785 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Middleton, 648 So. 2d 1200, 1201-02 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Lapidus v. Arlen Beach Condo. Ass’…1 / 2
-
13 Parcels LLC v. Edie Laquer, 104 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…strong public policy favoring arbitration. ‘All questions concerning the scope or waiver of the right to arbitrate under contracts should be resolved in favor of arbitration rather than against it.’ ” Zager Plumbing, Inc. v. JPI Nat’l Constr., Inc., 785 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (internal citations omitted). The appellants filed their demand for arbitration before filing their motion to transfer. Moreover, the motion to transfer, while specifically referencing the Iberia Lawsuits, did so, on its face…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lapidus v. Arlen Beach Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 394 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Beverly Hills Dev. Corp. v. George Wimpey OF Fla., Inc., 661 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Matrix Constr. Corp. v. Mecca Constr., Inc., 578 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Bonner v. RCC Assocs., Inc., 679 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)