HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BREVARD PHYSICIANS GROUP, P.A., ET AL., 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.
Health Care Associates appealed an arbitration order from the lower court, but the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the order confirming, modifying, or vacating the arbitration award was interlocutory and non-final, and no supreme court rule authorized appellate review of such orders.
The order is a non-appealable, non-final interlocutory order. The Florida Arbitration Code requires that judgment be entered only after an order confirming, modifying, or correcting an award, making such orders merely interlocutory. Although a statute purported to provide for appellate review of such orders, the court concluded that statute was invalid and no supreme court rule authorized review of these orders until final judgment is entered.
[1] An order confirming, modifying, or vacating an arbitration award is interlocutory and not immediately appealable.
[2] A judgment entered in conformity with an order confirming, modifying, or correcting an arbitration award is required before appellate review.
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“an order confirming, modifying or correcting an award, judgment or decree shall be entered in conformity therewith and be enforced as any other judgment or decree”
Establishes that orders confirming/modifying arbitration awards are interlocutory because judgment must be separately entered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe lower court issued an order confirming in part and modifying or vacating in part an arbitration award. At a subsequent hearing, the lower court ra…
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 Florida Arbitration Code cases and more on FLexlaw
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO RELEASE JURISDICTION OR FOR A DETERMINATION OF THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
This appeal is before the court on “Appellant’s Motion to Release Jurisdiction or for a Determination of This Court’s Jurisdiction.” The order appealed is an order of the lower court confirming in part and modifying or vacating in part an arbitration award. At a subsequent hearing in the lower court, the lower court perceptively raised the question of the appealability of this order, thus prompting appellant’s motion. The question of jurisdiction having been brought to the court’s attention, we conclude that the order sought to be reviewed is a non-appeal-able, non-final order. That the order is not final is plain from reading the Florida Arbi tration Code.1 The code specifically provides that upon “the granting of an order confirming, modifying or correcting an award, judgment or decree shall be entered in conformity therewith and be enforced as any other judgment or decree.” § 682.15, Fla. Stat. (1995). Thus, an order confirming, modifying or vacating the award is merely interlocutory.
The second question is whether such an interlocutory order is appealable. Appellant relies on section 682.20(l)(e)-(e), Florida Statutes, which does provide for appellate review of such orders. We agree with the conclusion of the First District Court of Appeal in City of Tallahassee v. Big Bend PBA, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1578 (Fla. 1st DCA June 24, 1997) that the statute is invalid, although we rely most directly on article V, section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. This is the provision which reposes in the supreme court the power to determine the jurisdiction of district courts of appeal to review interlocutory orders. R.J.B. v. State, 408 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla.1982). There is no rule promulgated by the supreme court that authorizes review of orders confirming or modifying arbitration awards. Such decisions of the circuit court become subject to review in the district courts of appeal only upon entry of the final judgment referenced in section 682.15, Florida Statutes.
Accordingly, jurisdiction is relinquished and appellant shall have thirty days from the date hereof within which to obtain a final order. Upon supplementation of the record with such an order, the appeal may proceed; otherwise, it will be dismissed.
W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . §§ 682.01-.22, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loewenstein, Inc. v. Draheim, 898 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ection 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. See Crawford v. Dwoskin, 729 So. 2d 520, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); City of Tallahassee v. Big Bend PBA, 703 So. 2d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Health Care Assocs., Inc. v. Brevard Physicians Group, P.A., 701 So. 2d 118, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). That section of the constitution permits district courts of appeal to review non-final orders only to “the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court.” Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. No rule of the supreme court…
-
Friendly Homes OF THE S. Inc. v. Sonnel Fontice and Vilcia Fontice, 932 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…isdiction to the district courts of appeal, which it has done with respect to the nonfinal orders listed in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See art. V, § (4)(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Health Care Assocs., Inc. v. Brevard Physicians Group, P.A., 701 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); City of Tallahassee, 703 So. 2d at 1069 (“Nor can the legislature create, by statute, a right to appeal from non-final orders not enumerated in Rule 9.130.”). Rule 9.130 contains no provision for interlocutory appeals from order…
-
Paige v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 987 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…tion to confirm the arbitration award is not a final judgment because the order lacks words of finality. See City of Tallahassee v. Big Bend PBA, 703 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Health Care Assocs., Inc. v. Brevard Physicians Group, P.A., 701 So. 2d 118, 118-19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Because the order was interlocutory and not a judgment, the order did not trigger the thirty-day cap provided in rule 1.525 for serving the motion. [*130] We remand for further proceedings on the motion for attorney’s f…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 408 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1982)
- City OF Tallahassee v. BIG Bend PBA and Tom Maureau, 703 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)