ELTON LEE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ALL FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION CO., ETC., 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.
Homeowners appealed an order confirming an arbitration award encompassing disputes from two separate construction contracts—one with an arbitration clause (home addition) and one without (hurricane repairs). The court reversed, holding that parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate claims arising from a contract lacking an arbitration clause, even when the work overlaps on the same structure.
The court held that where parties execute two separate contracts and only one contains an arbitration clause, disputes from the contract without the arbitration clause cannot be compelled to arbitration. Additionally, a single mechanic's lien cannot be filed for work arising from two distinct contracts; separate liens must be filed when work arises from different contractual arrangements.
[1] Parties can only be compelled to arbitrate disputes arising from a contract that contains an arbitration clause.
[2] A single claim of lien is improper when improvements arise from separate direct contracts.
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 parties enter into two separate contracts and only one contract contains an arbitration clause, the parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes arising from the contract that does not call for arbitration.”
Establishes the core holding that arbitration obligations are limited to the specific contract containing the arbitration clause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Lees contracted with All Florida Construction in August 1992 to build a recreation room and screen enclosure, with a mandatory arbitration clause.…
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 Mandatory Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Homeowners Elton and Barbara Lee appeal from an order confirming an arbitration award. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On August 14, 1992, the Lees contracted with All Florida Construction to build a recreation room and screen enclosure onto their home. The contract provided for mandatory arbitration if a dispute arose relating to that construction. After Hurricane Andrew damaged their home, the Lees signed another contract with All Florida Construction to repair the storm damage. That contract did not contain an arbitration clause, and did not refer to or incorporate the earlier agreement for the home addition.
The repairs and the addition proceeded simultaneously; as the projects neared completion, a dispute arose as to the quality and sufficiency of the work. In January, 1994, the contractor filed a single construction lien on the property for amounts claimed under both contracts, filed a demand for arbitration, and then sued to foreclose the lien and to recover damages for breach of contract. The homeowners moved to dismiss the foreclosure complaint on the ground that the contractor had wrongfully filed a single claim of lien for amounts due under two separate contracts. The homeowners also moved to stay arbitration on the ground that the hurricane repair contract did not contain an arbitration clause. The contractor moved to stay the foreclosure proceedings pending completion of the arbitration.
Court-ordered arbitration relating to both projects occurred in November, 1994 over the repeated objections of the homeowners. An arbitration award was rendered, ordering the homeowners to pay the contractor $39,-214.20 plus costs and fees. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award, denied the owners’ motion to vacate the arbitration award, and denied the homeowners’ motion to dismiss the foreclosure action.
The trial court erred in confirming the arbitration award, as the parties had agreed to arbitrate only those claims relating to the contract for the addition to their home, and had not agreed to arbitrate claims relating to the contract for hurricane repairs. Where parties enter into two separate contracts and only one contract contains an arbitration clause, the parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes arising from the contract that does not call for arbitration. All American Semiconductor, Inc. v. Unisys Corp., 637 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kimbrell & Hamann, P.A. v. Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd., 578 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The two contracts related to the same structure; the repairs for the storm damage by necessity overlapped the construction of the recreation room and screen enclosure. Nevertheless, the parties had executed two distinct contracts for the two work projects, and could only be compelled to arbitrate disputes that arose from the contract with the mandatory arbitration clause.
Moreover, because the two contracts were distinct, the contractor was required to file two claims of lien even though the work was done on the same structure. A single claim of lien may be filed “for more than one improvement under the same direct contract.” § 713.09, Fla.Stat. (1993). However, where the arrangements between the owner and the contractor for various projects do not arise from the “same direct contract,” a single claim of lien is improper. Kettles v. Charter Mortgage Co., 337 So. 2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying the owners’ motion to dismiss the action to foreclose on the mechanic’s lien.
In sum, we: 1) reverse the order confirming the arbitration award; 2) remand with directions to the trial court to order a new arbitration proceeding only as to the contract for the home addition; 3) reverse the order denying the owners’ motion to dismiss the action to foreclose on the mechánie’s lien; and 4) remand for further proceedings on the contractor’s claim against the owners for breach of the hurricane repair contract.1
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. See Oper v. Russell, Inc., 197 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 552 (Fla.,1967) (contractor’s breach of contract action survives dismissal of invalid claim to foreclose mechanic’s lien).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donnie Hugh Doctor v. State, 677 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…145 (Fla.1995), cert, denied,-U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 1679, 134 L.Ed.2d 781 (1996); Rayfield v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review denied, 664 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 1421, 134 L.Ed.2d 545 (1996); Jones v. State, 662 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review denied, 664 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1995), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 1421, 134 L.Ed.2d 546 (1996).…
-
Pierce v. State, 671 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…tate, 664 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, No. 86,543, 666 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dec. 19, 1995); Rayfield v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 664 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1995); Jones v. State, 657 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA), reh’g granted, 662 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 664 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1995). Exactly fact-similar to Jones, 656 So. 2d 489, the trial judge in the instant case instructed the jury as follows: And even though it’s a very heavy burden however, the State does not, and I r…
-
Lowe v. Nissan of Brandon, Inc., 235 So. 3d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…ract contains an arbitration clause, the parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes ---PAGE 10--- arising from the contract that does not call for arbitration.' " Phoenix Motor Co., 144 So. 3d at 696 (quoting Lee v. All Fla. Constr. Co., 662 So. 2d 365, 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)). The exception is where the contract with the arbitration clause incorporates by reference the contract which does not contain an arbitration clause, such that the latter could be "interpreted as part of the [former] cont…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- ALL Am. Semiconductor, Inc. v. Unisys Corp., 637 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Oper v. Russell, Inc., 197 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Mead v. Mead, 201 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1967)
- Padley v. Blamberg, 201 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1967)
- Kettles v. Charter Mortg. Co., 337 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Kimbrell & Hamann, P.A. v. Popham, 578 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)