PRUDENTIAL-BACHE SECURITIES, INC., F/K/A BACHE, HALSEY, STUART, SHIELD, INC. AND JOHN D. PAVLUS, APPELLANTS,
v.
TERRY LYNN SHUMAN, 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.
Prudential-Bache Securities and one of its stockbrokers appealed a circuit court's judgment confirming a $58,000 arbitration award in favor of an investor who sued for unsuitable investment advice. The appellate court affirmed, holding that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited and that the arbitrators' factual determinations must be upheld absent a showing of bias or prejudice.
The court affirmed the arbitration award. The appellate court held that the standard of judicial review of arbitration panel decisions is extremely limited, that arbitrators are the sole and final judges of evidence and its weight, and that a party challenging an award must demonstrate bias or prejudice on the part of the arbitrators to succeed.
[1] Judicial review of an arbitration panel's decision is extremely limited.
[2] An arbitration panel is the sole and final judge of the evidence and the weight to be given to it.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 standard of judicial review of an arbitration panel's decision is extremely limited. The panel is the sole and final judge of the evidence and the weight to be given it.”
Establishes the highly deferential standard of review applicable to arbitration awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued a stock brokerage firm and its stockbroker for damages arising from the stockbroker's investment of her money in unsuitable securit…
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 Grounds For Vacating Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants appeal a final judgment approving an arbitration award. We affirm.
The plaintiff filed a multi-count complaint in circuit court against the defendants, a stock brokerage and investment banking firm and one of its stockbrokers, seeking damages for the stockbroker’s investment of the plaintiff’s money in unsuitable securities and his pursuit of a risky investment scheme. By stipulation of the parties, the matter was submitted to arbitration. Following the final hearing, the three-arbitrator panel awarded the plaintiff $58,000 in compensatory damages on her claims. The defendants filed a motion in the circuit court to vacate or modify the award. The circuit court ordered the defendants to furnish the court with a transcript of the arbitration proceedings and a brief setting forth the basis upon which the defendants wished the court to modify the arbitration award. Following review of the transcript and the memoranda of law supplied by the parties, the court denied the defendants’ motion to vacate or modify the award and entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff confirming the arbitration award of $58,000. On appeal, the defendants do not contest their liability but merely challenge the amount of the award as being excessive under substantive law.
The standard of judicial review of an arbitration panel’s decision is extremely limited. The panel is the sole and final judge of the evidence and the weight to be given it. Affiliated Marketing, Inc. v. Dyco Chemicals & Coatings, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1977). The fact that the relief granted is such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not a ground for vacating or modifying the award. See § 682.13(1), Fla.Stat. (1983); Lake County Education Association v. School Board of Lake County, 360 So. 2d 1280, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 366 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1978). As the court in the second district has held,
[t]he proceedings had before the arbitrators are not generally to be examined by a trial Court or an appellate Court in determining how the arbitrators arrived at their award, [citations omitted] Such proceedings are not normally part of the award record, and it is incumbent upon the party feeling aggrieved to demonstrate bias or prejudice on the part of the arbitrators and if that burden is not sustained the award must be affirmed, [citation omitted]
Weeki Wachee Orchid Gardens, Inc. v. Florida Inland Theatres, Inc., 239 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 246 So. 2d 110 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 246 So. 2d 110 (Fla.1971). See also Affiliated Marketing; Bankers & Shippers Insurance Co. v. Gonzalez, 234 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
As did the court in Weeki Wachee, we find that the sole issue in the present case is a factual one. The arbitrators, as the finders of fact, reconciled the conflicting evidence and awarded the plaintiff $58,-000 in compensatory damages. The defendants have failed to demonstrate that the lower court committed reversible error by upholding the arbitrator’s award and denying their motion to vacate or modify the award. See §§ 682.13-14, Fla.Stat. (1983).
Accordingly, the order and judgment under review are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1989)…rth in the statute, the award operates as a final and conclusive judgment.” Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So. 2d 102, 105 (Fla.1951). See also District School Bd. v. Timoney, 524 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Shuman, 483 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); McDonald v. Hardee County School Bd., 448 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 456 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1984); Newport Motel, Inc. v. Cobin Restaurant, Inc., 281 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). As the third district recognized, no…
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinnacle Med., Inc., 753 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2000)…ration award only in limited circumstances,3 and courts attach a high degree of conclusiveness to the award. See District School Board of St. Johns County v. Timoney, 524 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., v. Shuman, 483 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The limited review and the conclusiveness attached to the arbitration award without the right of a trial de novo diminishes the right to have the ultimate decision in a case made by a court. As we noted in Pitsirelos, this violat…
-
Moser v. Barron Chase Sec., Inc., 783 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2001)…een held that an award does not have to reflect the precise reasoning, findings of facts, conclusions of law, or ultimately the basis upon which a decision was arrived at by the arbitrators. See generally Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Shuman, 483 So. 2d 888, 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The Shuman court reasoned that the legal basis of an award is immaterial to the subsequent determination by a trial court of whether an award should be vacated. See id. (“The fact that the relief granted is such that it coul…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dubbin v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States, 234 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- The Lake Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. The Sch. Bd. OF Lake Cnty., 360 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Affiliated Mktg., Inc. v. Dyco Chems. & Coatings, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Chesapeake House, Inc. v. LEE Mut. Ins. Agency, Inc., 239 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Weeki Wachee Orchid Gardens, Inc. v. Florida Inland Theatres, 246 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1971)
- AL Pflueger v. Sandilands, 246 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1971)