RANDALL HILL AND BUNKER HILL INVESTMENTS, INC., D/B/A RE/MAX PRESTIGE PROPERTIES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ELENA BLUNTZER, 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.
Randall Hill and Bunker Hill Investments appealed a trial court order granting Elena Bluntzer's motion to compel arbitration of her fraud and promissory estoppel claims regarding an allegedly unpaid real estate commission. The appellate court reversed, holding that the parties waived their right to arbitration by entering into an agreed order allowing Bluntzer to file an amended complaint, which was inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate.
The trial court erred in granting the motion to compel arbitration. The parties waived their right to arbitration by entering into the agreed order that granted Bluntzer leave to file a complaint for damages, since filing a complaint is inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The appellants' participation in litigation at various times during the proceedings also demonstrated a clear waiver of the right to arbitration.
[1] A party waives the right to arbitration by participating in litigation in a manner inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, such as by filing a complaint.
[2] An agreed order granting a party leave to file an amended complaint demonstrates a waiver of the right to arbitration.
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“The agreed order entered into between Bluntzer and the appellants required Bluntzer to withdraw her motion to compel arbitration and granted her twenty days leave to file an amended complaint. The fact that the second paragraph of the agreed order gave leave to the plaintiff to file a complaint for damages demonstrates that the parties waived their right to arbitration, since the filing of a complaint would be inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate.”
This establishes the core holding that the agreed order was fundamentally inconsistent with arbitration.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBluntzer, a real estate salesperson, sued appellants Hill and Bunker Hill Investments for fraud, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit regarding a d…
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 Waiver Of Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Randall Hill and Bunker Hill Investments, Inc. d/b/a RE/MAX Prestige Properties, Inc. (hereinafter “appellants”) appeal a trial court order granting Elena Bluntzer’s (hereinafter “Bluntzer”) motion to compel arbitration. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On April 4, 1996, Bluntzer filed this action seeking damages against the appellants on grounds of fraud, promissory estoppel and quantum meruit.1 Bluntzer’s complaint al leged that the appellants defrauded her of a real estate commission she earned while she was employed by the appellants.
On April 14.1996, the appellants filed motions to compel arbitration of Bluntzer’s claim.
On July 22.1996, Bluntzer submitted her own arbitration claim to Geoffrey Hill of RE/MAX of Florida.2 Although the appellants set their motion to compel arbitration twice on the court’s motion calendar, each time the hearing was cancelled. The appellants, shortly after the cancellation of the second hearing, served a notice of hearing for motions to dismiss and to strike Bluntzer’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
On August 22,1996,the court denied these motions finding that the complaint did state a cause of action. After the court ruled on the motions, the appellants served Bluntzer with a notice for the taking of her deposition.
On August 28, 1996, Bluntzer filed a motion for a protective order with the trial court and a motion to compel arbitration. The hearing for Bluntzer’s motions was set for September 5,1996. Shortly before the hearing began, the parties entered into negotiations which resulted in an agreed order between the parties. The terms of the agreed order were: (1) the plaintiffs motion to compel arbitration was withdrawn; (2) the plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint within 20 days of the order; and, (3) the motion for protective order, as to the deposition of the plaintiff, was deemed to be moot by reason of the withdrawal of the motion to compel arbitration.
On September 26, 1996, however, Bluntzer called Mr. Vinnie Tracy, Senior Vice-President of RE/MAX International, requesting his help in arbitrating the dispute. Shortly thereafter, Bluntzer filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration with the court. On ' November 5,1996, the trial court heard argument from the respective parties regarding the motion. On November 20, 1996, the trial court granted Bluntzer’s motion, and ordered the parties into arbitration.
The issue that we must decide is whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the parties into arbitration. The agreed order entered into between Bluntzer and the appellants required Bluntzer to withdraw her motion to compel arbitration and granted her twenty days leave to file an amended complaint. The fact that the second paragraph of the agreed order gave leave to the plaintiff to file a complaint for damages demonstrates that the parties waived their right to arbitration, since the filing of a complaint would be inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. See Phillips v. General Acc. Ins. Co., 685 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Bonner v. RCC Assocs., Inc., 679 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that contractor waived right to arbitrate by filing complaint and notice of lis pendens).
At various times during the proceedings below, particularly in connection with the agreed order described above, all of the parties herein have participated in the litigation, thereby clearly waiving their right to proceed in arbitration.
Therefore, we reverse the order under review and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
. Bluntzer is a real estate salesperson working within the RE/MAX of Florida, Inc. system. RE/ MAX Prestige Properties, Inc. is a RE/MAX franchisee under RE/MAX of Florida with offices in Miami, Florida. RE/MAX Prestige is owned by Hill, a real estate broker. . Geoffrey Hill is the administrator, of arbitration procedure for RE/MAX of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…e participation in a lawsuit is inconsistent with a party’s contractual right to arbitration and constitutes a waiver of that right. See Fine Decorators, Inc. v. Argent Global (Bermuda) Ltd., 919 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hill v. Bluntzer, 701 So. 2d 901, 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Lapidus v. Arlen Beach Condominium Assn., Inc., 394 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Because we find that the arbitration clause applied to Cohen’s defamation claims and that Cohen waived his right to arbitrate by filin…
Authorities Cited
- Bonner v. RCC Assocs., Inc., 679 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Castro v. State, 685 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Phillips v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 685 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)