SUZANNE KLEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
J.L. HOWARD, INC. D/B/A J/HOWARD DESIGN AND JUDY HOWARD, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Klein appealed a trial court's enforcement of an arbitration award, arguing the award was untimely rendered. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that while an arbitrator's delay in rendering an award is merely directory and does not invalidate it, a party's failure to timely file a motion for trial de novo makes the award mandatory to enforce.
The trial court is required to enforce an arbitration award and lacks discretion to do otherwise when no motion for trial de novo is filed within 20 days of service, regardless of whether the award itself was rendered untimely by the arbitrator, because the timely filing requirement is mandatory while the arbitrator's deadline is merely directory.
[1] Upon failure to move for a trial de novo within 20 days of service of an arbitration award, a trial court is required to enforce the award and lacks discretion to do othe…
[2] A trial court's discretion to enforce an arbitration award is mandatory when a timely request for a trial de novo is not filed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“upon the failure to move for a trial de novo within 20 days of the service of an arbitration award rendered pursuant to section 44.303, Florida Statutes (1987), the trial court is required to enforce the award and lacks discretion to do otherwise”
States the core holding that enforcement is mandatory absent timely trial de novo motion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn arbitration award was rendered by an arbitrator pursuant to section 44.303, Florida Statutes. The award was rendered beyond the ten-day period spec…
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 Directory Statutory Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.
As was correctly held below, under the clear and mandatory provisions of section 44.303(4), Florida Statutes (1987),1 and rule 1.820(h), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,2 upon the failure to move for a trial de novo within 20 days of the service of an arbitration award rendered pursuant to section 44.303, Florida Statutes (1987), the trial court is required to enforce the award and lacks discretion to do otherwise. Wiesen v. Schatzberg, 157 Fla. 375, 26 So. 2d 62 (1946); State ex rel. Negron v. Court of Record In and For Broward County, 286 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). It does not matter that the award itself was untimely rendered beyond the period provided by rule 1.820(g)(3), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,3 because, in contrast to section 44.-303(4) and rule 1.820(h), this clause is merely directory. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1982), on remand, 431 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 415 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); and cases cited.4 No other error is presented.
AFFIRMED.
HERSEY and POLEN, JJ., concur. . An arbitration decision shall be final if a request for a trial de novo is not filed within the time provided by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.... If no request for trial de novo is made within the time provided, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge in the case who shall enter such orders and judgments as are required to carry out the terms of the decision....
§ 44.303(4), Fla.Stat. (1987).
. If a motion for a trial de novo is not made within 20 days of service on the parties of the decision, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge who shall enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.303(4), Florida Statutes (1987). Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.820(h).
. Within ten days of the final adjournment of the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator(s) shall, in writing, notify the parties of their decision on a form approved by the Supreme Court. Fla.RXiv.P. 1.820(g)(3).
. Under the circumstances presented, relief under rule 1.540(b) was not available to the appellant. See Herrick v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 512 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 415 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Dep't OF Bus. Reg. v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1982)
- Herrick v. Se. Bank, N.A., 512 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Hyman v. State, 431 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Wiesen v. Schatzberg, 157 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1946)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Ozzie Joseph Negron v. The Court OF Record IN & FOR Broward Cnty., 286 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)