LEWIS H. SILVEIRA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
DIANNE E. SILVEIRA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In a marital dissolution case, the former husband appealed a trial court judgment that modified an arbitration award regarding property sales and alimony adjustments. The appellate court reversed, holding that the former wife waived her right to challenge these issues by failing to raise objections during arbitration and was estopped from relitigating them before the trial court.
The court held that the former wife waived her right to re-litigate the property sales and alimony adjustment issues before the trial court because she failed to raise specific objections at the time of the October 1991 draft or at the agreed-upon arbitration proceeding in November 1991. She is estopped from asserting a different position before the trial court after deciding she was unhappy with the arbitration result.
[1] A party may waive the right to relitigate issues by agreeing to arbitration and subsequently attempting to raise objections after an arbitration award has been issued.
[2] A party is estopped from asserting a different position before the trial court when they have previously agreed to arbitration in lieu of other dispute resolution methods…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although the former wife declined to sign the October draft, she did not raise the specific objections regarding the property sales/7% alimony adjustment at that time, nor at the agreed-upon arbitration proceeding on November 13, 1991.”
Establishes the factual basis for finding waiver—the former wife had multiple opportunities to raise her objections but did not.
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 drafted a proposed marital settlement agreement in June 1991 and proceeded to agreed-upon arbitration in November 1991. Between these date…
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 Award Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
The former husband, Lewis H. Silveira, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which followed various attempts of the parties to settle the terms of a proposed marital settlement agreement drafted in June, 1991, and an agreed-upon arbitration in November, 1991. The parties proceeded to final hearing before the trial court on February 25, 1992, and March 12, 1992. The former wife contested the interpretation of the June 20, 1991 agreement, as modified by the arbitration award. She disagreed with the husband’s position on the agreement’s provisions for sale of the parties’ Florida and Massachusetts real properties, and when a 7% per year adjustment factor on the alimony payments, which depended on the sales prices of the houses, might come into play. The former husband had filed a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and to Compel Execution of Marital Settlement Agreement, Payment of Wife of Expenses, and for Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The trial court agreed with the former wife’s position, modified the arbitration award accordingly, and entered final judgment based on marital settlement agreement as modified. We reverse.
Between the drafting of the June 20, 1991 proposed settlement agreement and the November, 1991 arbitration, it is apparent the parties were continuing their efforts to reach a final agreement. Several drafts were prepared, including one in October, 1991. Although the former wife declined to sign the October draft, she did not raise the specific objections regarding the property sales/7% alimony adjustment at that time, nor at the agreed-upon arbitration proceeding on November 13, 1991. We therefore hold that on the facts of this ease, the former wife waived the right to re-litigate these issues before the trial court, having decided after the arbitration award was issued that she was unhappy with the result. Because she agreed to arbitration, in lieu of the earlier-attempted but aborted mediation, the former wife is es-topped from asserting a different position before the trial court.
We therefore reverse the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, and remand for entry of a new Final Judgment based on the October, 1991 draft of the Marital Settlement Agreement, as modified by the November 25, 1991 arbitration award.
Finding no merit in the issue raised by the former wife on her cross:appeal, we affirm.
FARMER, J., concurs.
GUNTHER, J., dissents without opinion.