VALUE CAR SALES, INC., PAYDAYS OF ORLANDO, INC., AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
LORI ANN BOUTON, 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.
A used car buyer sought to void an arbitration clause in her purchase agreement, claiming it unlawfully restricted her court access and lacked mutuality of obligation. The Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of arbitration, holding that arbitration agreements are enforceable when parties have knowingly agreed to them and do not improperly deny court access.
The court held that arbitration agreements do not deny access to courts because parties waive that right by agreeing to arbitration instead of litigation. The court found that arbitration agreements need not have perfect mutuality because the impact falls differently on each party based on their different rights and obligations. Claims for breach of contract, conversion, wrongful repossession, civil theft, and unfair trade practices are subject to arbitration.
[1] Parties may agree in a written contract to settle by arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between them relating to such contract or the failure or refusal to pe…
[2] Agreements to arbitrate do not deny access to the courts because the parties agreeing to arbitration have waived that right by agreeing to arbitration in lieu of litigati…
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“Such arbitration agreements do not deny access to the courts because the parties agreeing to arbitration have waived that right by agreeing to arbitration in lieu of litigation.”
Establishes the core holding that arbitration agreements are enforceable because parties voluntarily waive their court access rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceValue Car Sales sold a used car to Lori Ann Bouton under an agreement containing an arbitration clause. A dispute arose between the parties, and Bouto…
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 Wrongful Repossession cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
The agreement between a used car seller (appellant) and the purchaser (appellee) contained an arbitration clause. After a dispute between the parties, the purchaser filed an action at law asserting breach of contract, fraud, unfair trade practices (§ 501.201, et seq., Fla.Stat.), conversion, wrongful repossession and civil theft. The trial court denied the seller’s motion to enforce arbitration, finding that while there was no issue but that the purchaser had signed the contract containing the arbitration provision, the arbitration provision unlawfully restricted the purchaser’s access to the courts and lacked mutuality of obligation, and that the seller was not entitled to arbitration as to the issues in the law action. We reverse.
Section 682.02, Florida Statutes, provides that parties may agree in a written contract to settle by arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between them relating to such contract or the failure or refusal to perform the whole, or any part thereof. Such arbitration agreements do not deny access to the courts because the parties agreeing to arbitration have waived that right by agreeing to arbitration in lieu of litigation. While it has been said that such arbitration agreements must have mutuality of obligation, in the nature of the contracts, the impact of an arbitration agreement falls upon the parties differently because each party has different rights and obligations under every contract. The plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, conversion, wrongful repossession and civil theft are subject to arbitration.1 We find no Florida cases specifically holding that claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (§ 501.201, et seq., Fla.Stat.) are not subject to arbitration. The First District Court of Appeal in Physicians Weight Loss Centers v. Payne, 461 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) implied that claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act are subject to arbitration. But see contrary dicta from the Third District in Consolidated Labor Union Trust v. Clark, 498 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (considering beneficiary’s right to attorney’s fees under Employee Retirement Income Security Act).
We reverse the order denying enforcement of arbitration and remand with directions to grant that motion.
ORDER DENYING MOTION REVERSED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO GRANT MOTION.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . Disputes over punitive damages are not an appropriate subject for arbitration absent an express provision authorizing such relief. Complete Interiors, Inc. v. Behan, 558 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 570 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terminix Int'l Co., LP v. Ponzio, 693 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ng construction of arbitration provisions. Indeed, Florida courts have not hesitated to order arbitration where tort claims are involved. See, e.g., Bachus & Stratton, Inc. v. Mann, 639 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Value Car Sales, Inc. v. Bouton, 608 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Larry Kent Homes v. Empire of [*109] America, FSA 474 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1986). Besides relying on Michaels, the plaintiffs rely on the state constitutional guarantees of access to co…
-
Stacy David, Inc. v. Consuegra, 845 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…arbitration clauses in the context of a purchase of a used automobile even when the plaintiff alleged fraud or deceptive trade practices. See Passerrello v. Robert L. Lipton, Inc., 690 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Value Car Sales, Inc. v. Bouton, 608 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Seifert did not overrule this case law. The fact that the automobile in this case is new is not a factor that should require different rules of arbitrability. In this type of consumer claim, the duties alleged under theories suc…
-
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…is the validity of the arbitration provision. We begin our analysis by noting that FDUTPA claims properly may be submitted to arbitration. Aztec Med. Servs., Inc. v. Burger, 792 So. 2d 617, 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Value Car Sales, Inc. v. Bouton, 608 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). When considering whether the legislature intended to preclude the submission of FDUTPA claims to arbitration, the Aztec court declared that to do so, “the legislature would have to state such a requirement in unambiguous te…
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
- Complete Interiors, Inc. v. Behan, 558 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Physicians Weight Loss Ctrs. OF Am., Inc. v. Nicki G. Payne, 461 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Consol. Labor Union Tr. v. Clark, 498 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)