OWEN ADLER, APPELLANT,
v.
GARY RIMES, BROADCORT CAPITAL CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND MORGAN, OLMSTEAD, KENNEDY & GARDNER, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
The trial court erred in denying the appellant's request for a jury trial to determine the validity of the arbitration agreements when the making of those agreements was genuinely in issue.
Appellant opened securities accounts with brokerage firms via agreements containing arbitration clauses and sued for losses. The trial court denied a …
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 Arbitration Clause Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
This is an appeal of the trial court’s order granting appellees’ motions to stay litigation pending arbitration.
Appellant executed customer agreements to open securities accounts with certain brokerage firms. Each agreement contained an arbitration clause.
The complaint seeks damages from the appellees, as corresponding or clearing brokers, for losses in appellant’s accounts.
Appellant’s motion for a jury trial on the rescission count was denied. Instead, the trial court, having determined appellant’s “fraudulent inducement issue” to be “genuine,” conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity and enforceability of the customer agreements.
After finding the customer agreements bound appellant, the trial court granted appellees’ motions to stay litigation. However, the trial court did not compel arbitration.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is binding on the courts of this state. Southland Corporation v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 24, 104 S.Ct. 852, 865, 79 L.Ed.2d 1, 20, 21 (1984); Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 405 So. 2d 790, 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The parties agree the FAA applies to this case.
Section 4 of the FAA provides for a jury trial “if the making of the arbitration agreement ... be in issue.” The appellees invoked this section when they filed “hybrid” motions1 to stay litigation pending arbitration and to compel arbitration.
Once appellees invoked section 4, appellant had the right to demand a jury trial to resolve the issue of whether the agreements were fraudulently induced.
Having found the validity of the customer agreements a genuine issue, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s request for a jury to decide the issue.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur. . Motions which are not “classic” § 3 or § 4 motions. When the two sections are combined in a single motion, the statutory distinction is lost.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.W. Brown & Co. v. McCUTCHEN, 819 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…on it is necessary to determine whether the issue of arbitrability should be decided by a court or by the NASD panel. Because the parties’ underlying claims in arbitration involve securities, the Federal Arbitration Act applies. See Adler v. Rimes, 545 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Melamed, 405 So. 2d 790, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The McCutchens correctly note that in enacting Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, “Congress declared a national policy…
-
Wallace v. Susanne M. Wallace, 605 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…1981). An award of attorney’s fees in an action for dissolution of marriage must rest upon well-settled legal principles. See Nichols v. Nichols, 519 So. 2d 620 (Fla.1988); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Georgiton v. Georgiton, 545 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 554 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989). We reverse the award here and remand for reconsideration in light of the requirements of Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (relying on Florida Patient’s Compensation…
-
Florrie Emma Barlow v. Barlow, 562 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…(Fla.1980). The concept is ill-suited to the case before us. In light of the duration of the marriage, the wife’s age and sometimes debilitating medical condition, the alimony should be considered permanent periodic alimony. Georgiton v. Georgiton, 545 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 554 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989) (three-year rehabilitative alimony awarded to 65-year-old husband converted to permanent alimony in view of his age and no evidence that he can become self-supporting). Also, while the income…
Authorities Cited
- Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1984)
- Ivey v. State, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Augusto Salazar, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)