MEDIDENT CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PAMELA CHAPPELL, 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.
Medident Construction appeals a trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a construction dispute. The court holds that when a party challenges the validity of an entire contract rather than specifically attacking the arbitration clause itself, the matter must be resolved through arbitration, not in court.
Where fraud or grounds for avoidance or invalidity are alleged against an entire agreement rather than specifically against the arbitration clause, the entire matter must be resolved by arbitration. Only attacks specifically and exclusively directed at the arbitration clause or a separate arbitration agreement may be decided by the court before the balance of the dispute goes to arbitration.
[1] Where a party alleges fraud or other grounds for avoidance or invalidity of an entire contract, rather than specifically as to an arbitration clause within that contract,…
[2] An arbitration provision within a contract is considered separate from the rest of the contract and must be specifically attacked on appropriate grounds for a court to co…
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“Where fraud or some other ground for avoidance or invalidity of contract is alleged as to an entire agreement rather than specifically as to the arbitration clause contained within that agreement, the entire matter should be resolved by arbitration.”
Establishes the primary rule that general contract invalidity challenges must go to arbitration, not court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMedident Construction entered into a construction contract with homeowner Pamela Chappell that contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to b…
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 Clause Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Medident Construction, Inc. appeals a non-final order denying its motion to compel arbitration and to stay state court action. We reverse.
This dispute arose out of a construction contract entered into between Pamela Chap-pell, the homeowner, and Medident Construction. The contract contained an arbitration clause providing that all disputes between the parties would be submitted to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. Chappell filed a complaint against Medident,' seeking a declaration of the parties’ rights under the contract, compensatory and punitive damages, and fees pursuant to the contract.
The issue on appeal is whether the initial validity of the contract as a whole is to be decided by the trial court or by arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in that contract. Where fraud or some other ground for avoidance or invalidity of contract is alleged as to an entire agreement rather than specifically as to the arbitration clause contained within that agreement, the entire matter should be resolved by arbitration. Manning v. Interfuture Trading, Inc., 578 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Ronbeck Construction Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Beaver Coaches v. Revels Nationwide R.V. Sales, Inc., 543 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Only if the attack is specifically and exclusively directed toward the arbitration clause or a separate agreement to arbitrate may the court try the issue before submitting the balance of the dispute to arbitration. Manning, 578 So. 2d at 843. In the instant case, the appellee has not specifically attacked the validity of the arbitration clause itself. Rather, all of the appellee’s allegations and contentions go to the contract as a whole. As the court in Ronbeck recognized, the arbitration provision in a contract is separate from the rest of the contract, and must itself be specifically attacked on some appropriate ground. Ronbeck Construction Co., 592 So. 2d at 347; R.B.F. Management Co. v. Sunshine Towers Apartment Residences Ass’n, Inc., 352 So. 2d 561, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
The relief appellee seeks falls within the scope of the arbitration clause and should be submitted to arbitration.
We reverse the non-final order under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to allow arbitration and stay state court proceedings during the pendency of dispute resolution by arbitration.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Gainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston, 857 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…(1996) (holding that section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act permits “generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or uncon-scionability, [to] be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements”); Medident Constr., Inc. v. Chappell, 632 So. 2d 194, 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (fraud and other grounds for avoidance or invalidation of a contract may be applied to invalidate an arbitration agreement). In Florida, a court may decline to enforce a contract on the ground that it is unconscionable. E.g.,…
-
KEL Homes, LLC v. Michael and Tonia Burris, 933 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…itself is one for the arbitrators. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 1208, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006); Kaplan v. Kimball Hill Homes Fla., Inc., 915 So. 2d 755, 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Medident Constr., Inc. v. Chappell, 632 So. 2d 194, 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). However, when a party specifically challenges only the validity of the arbitration clause, the issue of the validity of the arbitration clause must be determined by the trial court before any referral to arbitration is prope…
-
Kaplan v. Kimball Hill Homes Fla., Inc., 915 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…002) (“It is well established that a dispute must be arbitrated where a complaint alleges, fraud seeking to avoid or invalidate an entire agreement, rather than just the arbitration clause within the agreement.”); Medident Constr., Inc. v. Chappell, 632 So. 2d 194, 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“Where fraud or some other ground for avoidance or invalidity of contract is alleged as to an entire agreement rather than specifically as to the arbitration clause within that agreement, the entire matter should be resolved…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp. & Savanna Club Realty Inc., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Vance Lamar Larsen v. State, 543 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Manning v. Interfuture Trading, Inc., 578 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- R. B. F. Mgmt. Co. v. Sunshine Towers Apt. Residences Ass'n, Inc., 352 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)