THE KEYES CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MANUEL GOMEZ AND M & M AEROSPACE, INC., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the Keyes Co. (Keyes), appeals from a final order confirming an arbitration award in favor of appellee, M & M Aerospace, Inc. (M & M). We affirm.
The standard of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited. Schnurmacher v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.1989). An award of arbitration may not be reversed on the ground that an arbitrator made an error of law. Schnurmacher v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d at 1329 (citing Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So. 2d 102 (Fla 1951)). If the arbitrator is not guilty of acts of misconduct, the award operates as a final and conclusive judgment, and “however disappointing it may be ... the parties must abide by it.” Schnurmacher v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d at 1330.
There is no suggestion that the arbitrator in this case was guilty of any misconduct. Accordingly, the arbitration award is affirmed.
Affirmed.
JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ., concur.
FERGUSON, Judge
(dissenting).
For the purpose of this review, the following condensed facts are pertinent.
The arbitration agreement in question provided that, in the event of a default by the buyer, the seller could retain one-half of the deposit plus reasonable attorney’s fees. It was also provided that the broker would be entitled to its 7½% fee from the escrow deposit after the seller had been paid its liquidated damages and costs. After an arbitration hearing, the seller was awarded 79% of the deposit plus costs, leaving an amount for distribution to the broker substantially less than its 7⅜% commission.
In my view the circuit court was empowered to, and should have modified the award to conform to the arbitration agreement. I read Schnurmacher Holding Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.1989), relied upon by the appellee, as supportive of the appellant’s position to the extent it holds that an arbitrator exceeds his power when he makes an award which is not contemplated by the arbitration agreement. The United States Supreme Court made the same point in stronger language:
An arbitrator is confined to interpretation and application of the ... agreement; he does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice.... When the arbitrator’s words manifest an infidelity to his obligation, Courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award.
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424, 1428 (1960).
On the authority of section 682.13(l)(c) or 682.14(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), the award should have been vacated, or corrected to conform to the arbitration agreement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Verzura Constr., Inc. v. Surfside Ocean, Inc., 708 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…her Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327, 1328 (Fla.1989); Service Station Aid, Inc. v. Turnberry Assocs., 629 So. 2d 204, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review granted, 639 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1994), aff'd, 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1995); Keyes Co. v. Gomez, 590 So. 2d 954, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Packard, 531 So. 2d at 991. Indeed, the arbitration code itself specifically provides that the fact that the relief [granted by the panel] was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Turchin/CRS, 641 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…he arbitrators’ award of prejudgment interest to the City based on legal error or equitable principles. Service Station Aid, Inc. v. Turnberry Assocs., 629 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review granted, 639 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1994); Keyes Co. v. Gomez, 590 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Second, we hold that the prejudgment interest issue was within the scope of the arbitrators’ authority, where as here, the record reflects that the parties voluntarily litigated the issue of damages without objection. The arbitra…
Authorities Cited
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel & CAR Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1960)
- Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1989)
- Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1951)