WILLIAM PHILLIP AUSTIN AND W.P. AUSTIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
R.L. STOVALL AND STEEL FABRICATION AND ERECTION SALES, INC., 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.
In this arbitration dispute, the court reversed a summary judgment confirming an arbitration award where the plaintiffs unilaterally dismissed the arbitrator chosen by both parties and appointed a new arbitrator without the defendants' participation. The court held that such proceedings constitute a void arbitration, and defendants need not have timely moved to vacate the award to challenge it.
The award is a nullity. Where one party unilaterally dismisses the arbitrator chosen pursuant to the parties' agreement and appoints a new arbitrator without following lawful appointment procedures or obtaining the other party's agreement, the resulting arbitration proceedings and award are void. The failure to timely move to vacate the award under Florida Statute § 682.13 does not preclude the defendants from attacking the award as the product of a void proceeding.
[1] Proceedings before an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party after the other party has withdrawn are nullities and the resulting award is void.
[2] A party is not precluded from attacking a void arbitration award for failure to timely move to vacate the award.
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“where, as here, the plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the arbitrator chosen by the parties pursuant to their agreement, unilaterally dismissed the arbitrator and chose a new "arbitrator" before whom, with the defendants declining to participate, the plaintiffs conducted further proceedings, such proceedings and the resulting arbitration award in the plaintiffs' favor are nullities”
Establishes the core holding that unilateral dismissal of an agreed arbitrator and appointment of a replacement without the other party's agreement voids the entire arbitration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had agreed to arbitration regarding whether defendants owed plaintiffs an unpaid balance of $2,375.00 under a construction subcontract. Th…
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 Confirmation Of Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The summary judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the appellees, plaintiffs below, is reversed upon a holding that where, as here, the plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the arbitrator chosen by the parties pursuant to their agreement, unilaterally dismissed the arbitrator and chose a new “arbitrator” before whom, with the defendants declining to participate, the plaintiffs conducted further proceedings, such proceedings and the resulting arbitration award in the plaintiffs’ favor are nullities,1 and the defendants’ failure to move timely to vacate the award, see § 682.13, Fla.Stat. (1983), does not preclude the defendants from attacking the entire award as being the result of a void arbitration proceeding.2
Reversed.
. Section 682.04, Florida Statutes (1983), sets forth the lawful method for appointing an arbitrator:
"If an agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law provides a method for the appointment of arbitrators or an umpire, this method shall be followed. In the absence thereof, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or if an arbitrator or umpire who has been appointed fails to act and his successor has not been duly appointed, the court, on application of a party to such agreement or provision shall appoint one or more arbitrators or an umpire....”
. Even had the selection of the new arbitrator comported with the law’s requirements, the major portion of the judgment would be reversible nonetheless. See Meade v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 423 So. 2d 908 (Fla.1982). The sole issue before the arbitrator was whether the defendants owed the plaintiffs an unpaid balance of $2,375.00 under a subcontract on a construction job. Astonishingly, the award made by the arbitrator to the plaintiffs was $559,001.95, which included amounts for slander, mental anguish, conspiracy, .and loss of future profits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Est. of Grace Quinn v. Ccrc Opco Freedom Square LLC, 320 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…rators appointed outside the method outlined in the parties' contract exceed their authority by deciding issues which the parties have agreed to arbitrate" (citing R.J. O'Brien & Assocs., v. Pipkin, 64 F. 3d 257 (7th Cir. 1995))); Austin v. Stovall, 475 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (reversing judgment confirming arbitration award where, among other deficiencies, party unilaterally dismissed arbitrator selected pursuant to parties' agreement and presented claims to new "arbitrator" instead). Accordingly…
Authorities Cited
- Meade v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 423 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1982)