THOMAS W. WARD & ASSOC., INC., D/B/A WARD TECHNOLOGY, APPELLANT,
v.
HUGH G. SPINKS AND CHARLES J. SALVO, 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 appellate court reversed a lower court's order compelling arbitration, holding that the trial court must first determine if the parties intended to be bound by the arbitration clause after their written agreements terminated or were superseded by a new oral agreement.
Yes, the trial court erred. It was necessary to first determine as a factual matter whether the parties intended to continue to be bound by the arbitration clause after the written contracts terminated or were replaced by a new oral agreement.
[1] An order compelling arbitration is appealable as a non-final order.
[2] A trial court errs by compelling arbitration before determining as a factual matter whether parties intended to continue to be bound by an arbitration clause after writte…
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“We hold it was error for the trial court to compel arbitration before it determined as a factual matter whether the parties intended to continue to be bound by the arbitration clause after the written contracts terminated.”
Establishes the core legal error identified by the court.
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 written agreements with arbitration clauses. One agreement expired, and the appellant alleged the other was terminated by abandonment …
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 Compel Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We treat this petition for writ of certiorari from an order compelling arbitration as an appeal of a non-final order under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v).
The parties had entered into written agreements containing arbitration clauses. One of the agreements had expired by its terms. Appellant alleged that the other was terminated by abandonment. Appellant also alleged and sought to prove that both written agreements were superseded by a new oral agreement substantially changing the terms of engagement between the parties and not containing any agreement to arbitrate. Appellees disputed the termination by abandonment of the one contract and the new oral contract alleged by the other appellant. Without determining whether or not the new oral contract was entered, the trial court ordered arbitration after finding in essence that many of the allegations of appellant’s causes of action arose out of their original relationship.
We hold it was error for the trial court to compel arbitration before it determined as a factual matter whether the parties intended to continue to be bound by the arbitration clause after the written contracts terminated. Fla.Stat. § 682.03(1) (1989); Calloway Homes, Inc. v. Smiley, 422 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See Metropolitan Dade County v. Resources Recovery Const. Corp., 462 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). If, as appellant alleges, the parties entered into an entirely different arrangement intended to take the place of the previous agreement the arbitration clause may not apply. Whether or not a dispute should be submitted to arbitration is a question for the court to determine from the contract of the parties. Eugene W Kelsey & Son, Inc. v. Architectural Openings, Inc., 484 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Thus, the trial court cannot leave it to the arbitrators themselves to determine which claims are subject to arbitration when it has not established which agreement applies.
We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ANSTEAD, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ble issue in the first place.5 See Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla.1999)(determination of whether arbitration is required for a particular dispute is a matter of contract interpretation); Thomas W. Ward & Assoc., Inc. v. Spinks, 574 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(stating that: “[w]hether or not a dispute should be submitted to arbitration is a question for the court to determine from the contract of the parties.”). Because we believe that the trial court’s finding was not erroneous,…
-
Romano v. Goodlette Off. Park, Ltd., 700 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…in First Options, one appellate court in this state recognized that decisions regarding ar-bitrability are to be made by the trial court, unless the parties have entered an agreement stating otherwise. In Thomas W. Ward & Associates, Inc. v. Spinks, 574 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the Fourth District Court of Appeal stated: Whether or not a dispute should be submitted to arbitration is a question.for the court to determine from the contract of the parties. Thus, the trial court cannot leave it to the arb…
-
Morton v. Polivchak, 931 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…s regarding arbitrability are to be made by the trial court, unless the parties have entered an agreement stating otherwise.” Romano v. Goodlette Office Park, Ltd., 700 So. 2d 62, 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (relying on Thomas W. Ward & Assocs. v. Spinks, 574 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)); see also Royal Prof'l Builders, Inc. v. Roggin, 853 So. 2d 520, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Premier [*939] Med. Mgmt., Ltd. v. Salas, 830 So. 2d 959, 961 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “Contractual silence or ambiguity regarding who de…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eugene W. Kelsey & SON, Inc. v. Architectural Openings, Inc., 484 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Res. Recovery (Dade County) Constr. Corp., 462 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Calloway Homes, Inc. v. Smiley, 422 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)