MARGARET D. MURPHEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEAN WITTER & CO., INCORPORATED, APPELLEE
MARGARET D. MURPHEY, APPELLANT,
DEAN WITTER & CO., INCORPORATED, APPELLEE
392 So. 2d 286
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1980)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Arbitration Agreement Enforceability
Confirmation Of Arbitration Award
Arbitration Agreement
Enforcement
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitration Agreement Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
Concurrence
ANSTEAD, Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree with the majority that the trial court did have jurisdiction to confirm the award of arbitration even though that award was made in New York. Unlike the situation in Knight v. H. S. Equities, Inc., 280 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) and Damora v. Stresscon International, Inc., 324 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1975), the appellant here voluntarily chose to go ahead and arbitrate her dispute with appellee in New York as provided by the parties’ agreement. The agreement further provided that the arbitration award could be enforced by any court acquiring jurisdiction. The appellant herself initiated this action and sought approval of the award. It is true that she later voluntarily dismissed her action but that did not occur until the appellee had counter-claimed for enforcement of the award. In Knight, supra, we held that the trial court lacked the authority to compel someone to arbitrate in another jurisdiction. Here, arbitration has already taken place and resulted in an award which the appellant has not challenged. As noted in Knight:
It is recognized that agreements to arbitrate disputes are generally looked upon with approval by the courts and every reasonable presumption will be indulged to uphold arbitration proceedings which have resulted in an award.
As emphasized by the court in Knight, courts are especially prone to uphold arbitration proceedings which have resulted in an award. That is precisely what took place here.
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)…ion, § 682.02, Fla. Stat. (1981); Damora v. Stresscon International, Inc., 324 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1975); Romar Transports Limited, Inc. v. Iron & Steel Company of Trinidad, 386 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); see Murphey v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc., 392 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Knight v. H. S. Equities, 280 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); the arbitration clause found in the contract between Fairways and Commercial,5 which provides that arbitration shall be conducted under the rules of the American Arbi…
-
Lewis & Peat Coffee, Inc. v. Condor Grp., Inc., 588 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…the arbitration award. It was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Contrary to the decision of the trial court, we hold that the Dade County Circuit Court is a court of competent jurisdiction to confirm the award. See Murphey v. Dean Witter & Co., 392 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (Anstead, J. concurring specially) (Florida court had jurisdiction to confirm arbitration award even though the award was made in New York). By terms of the parties’ agreement, any court with jurisdiction over the parties and the…
-
Soares da Costa Constr. Servs., LLC v. Alta MAR Dev., LLC, 85 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…at Tarragon’s motion to confirm the award on its counterclaim was pending would be the antithesis of “indulg[ing] every reasonable presumption to uphold [the arbitration] proceedings.” Miele, 656 So. 2d at 473; see also Murphey v. Dean Witter & Co., 392 So. 2d 286, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (Anstead, J., specially concurring) (recognizing that appellant originally sought enforcement of arbitration award but later voluntarily dismissed her action after appellee filed its counterclaim, but explaining that courts…
Authorities Cited
- Damora v. Stresscon Int'l, Inc., 324 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1975)
- Valencia Drumgo v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 280 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)