COLLIER LAND CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROYAL PALM BEACH REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
Appellants appealed an order compelling arbitration of a real estate development dispute under a written agreement containing an arbitration clause. The court affirmed, holding that the arbitration provision in Paragraph 38 was valid and enforceable under Florida law, requiring the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration before pursuing litigation.
The arbitration provision in Paragraph 38 was valid and enforceable under Florida Arbitration Code Section 682.02, and the trial court properly ordered the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration before pursuing litigation. The court rejected appellants' contentions that the arbitration clause was void or that plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitration.
[1] A contract provision for the arbitration of future disputes is enforceable under Florida law.
[2] A trial court order compelling arbitration and staying further proceedings is reviewable by interlocutory appeal.
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“Any disagreement arising out of this Agreement or from the breach of it shall be submitted to arbitration, and this Agreement to arbitrate shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law, and judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in the highest court of the forum, state or federal, having jurisdiction.”
The arbitration clause itself, establishing that disputes must be submitted to arbitration and that such agreements are specifically enforceable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 29, 1972, Collier Land Corporation and Royal Palm Beach Realty, Inc. entered into a written agreement for the sale and development of real pro…
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 Compulsory Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellants, defendants below, bring this interlocutory appeal from an order compelling arbitration and staying proceedings entered by the trial court pursuant to appel-lees’, plaintiffs below, (except appellee Central Bank and Trust Company who was a defendant below) motion.
Appellees Royal Palm Beach Realty, Inc., and Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) and appellants on June 29, 1972, entered into a written agreement providing for the sale and development of certain real property located in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The parties acted in accordance with the agreement through August 31, 1974. After this date, appellants by a letter dated September 5, 1974, terminated the agreement. Thereafter, on March 27, 1975, plaintiffs filed a complaint complaining of certain matters relating to the termination of the agreement and sought, among other things, the following relief: an injunction, an accounting, and the appointment of a receiver. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to compel appellants to submit to compulsory arbitration and requesting that further proceedings in the civil action be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. On August 27,1975, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion. From this order, appellants appeal.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in entering; the August 27,1975, order compelling arbitration and staying further proceedings in the cause because the provision in the contract providing for the arbitration of future disputes between the parties is void and unenforceable and, in the alternative, plaintiffs waived any right to submit the instant dispute to arbitration. Appellees contend to the contrary.
Paragraph 38 of the agreement between the parties contained the following provision:
“38. ARBITRATION: Any disagreement arising out of this Agreement or from the breach of it shall be submitted to arbitration, and this Agreement to arbitrate shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law, and judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in the highest court of the forum, >state or federal, having jurisdiction. It is mutually agreed that the decision of the arbitrators shall be a condition precedent to any right of legal action that the parties may have against each other pursuant to this Agreement. The arbitration procedure shall be as follows: The parties may agree upon one arbitrator; otherwise there shall be three, one named in writing by the OWNER and one named in writing by the BROKER and/or DEVELOPER within five days after notice of arbitration is served by any party upon the others, and a third arbitrator selected by these two arbitrators within five days thereafter. No one shall serve as an arbitrator who is in any way financially interested in this Agreement or in the affairs of the OWNER, BROKER, or DEVELOPER. At the written request of either party, at any time prior to the complete appointment of arbitrators, as provided above, or in the event of any default or lapse in the proceedings, the arbitration shall be held under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The foregoing procedure for arbitration shall likewise be available to BROKER AND DEVELOPER if OWNER alleges any default under this Agreement.”
A reading of Paragraph 38 of the agreement, in light of Section 682.02, Florida Statutes (1975) (Florida Arbitration Code) and the facts of this case, leads us to the conclusion that the trial court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion compelling arbitration between the parties and staying further proceedings in the cause in the trial court. See Gersh v. Concept House, 291 So. 2d 258 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Merkle v. Rice Construction Company, 271 So. 2d 220 (Fla.2nd DCA 1973); and Mills v. Robert W. Gottfried, Inc., 272 So. 2d 837 (Fla.4th DCA 1973). We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the order compelling arbitration and staying proceedings appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Post Tensioned Eng'g Corp. & Commercial Constr. Corp. v. Fairways Plaza Assocs., 412 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…t alleges fraud, Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Bloom, 386 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Raymond, James and Associates, Inc. v. Maves, 384 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); seeks equitable relief,7 Collier Land Corporation v. Royal Palm Realty, Inc., 338 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and concerns a complex construction industry dispute, William Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Mayfair House Association, Inc., 395 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Finally, and most emphatically, we reject Fairways’ argument that b…
-
Raymond v. Vallery V. Maves and Ethel Pryor Maves, 384 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…court nor the other district courts of appeal follow that rationale in applying arbitration agreements. They have chosen instead to apply the letter and spirit of the Florida Arbitration Code. See Collier Land Corp. v. Royal Palm Beach Realty, Inc., 338 So. 2d 859 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 945 (Fla.1977). This court in Levine listed several reasons for distinguishing Klosters Rederi A/S v. Arison Shipping Co., 280 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1131, 94 S.Ct. 869, 38 L.Ed.2d…
-
Larry Kent Homes, Inc. v. Empire OF Am. FSA, 474 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…nt alleges fraud, Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Bloom, 386 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Raymond, James and Associates, Inc. v. Maves, 384 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); seeks equitable relief, Collier Land Corporation v. Royal Palm Realty, Inc., 338 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and concerns a complex construction industry dispute, William Pasalaqua Builders, Inc. v. Mayfair House Association, Inc., 395 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Finally, and most emphatically, we reject Fairways’ argument that bec…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mills v. Robert W. Gottfried, Inc., 272 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Gersh v. Concept House, Inc., 291 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Merkle v. Rice Constr. Co., 271 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)