MICHAEL R. PRESLEY AND CYNTHIA J. PRESLEY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN SZERDI AND JOHN W. SZERDI AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECT-A.I.A., 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.
The court affirmed orders compelling arbitration of disputes arising from an architect agreement, rejecting claims of fraud in the arbitration clause, mutual mistake, and waiver of arbitration rights.
An arbitration clause in a standard form agreement between owner and architect is enforceable and disputes including slander of title and fraudulent lien claims must be arbitrated.
[1] A filing of a counterclaim to foreclose a lien does not constitute a waiver of the right to arbitrate disputes arising under an arbitration agreement.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePresley and Szerdi entered into a Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect that contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose regardin…
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 Fraudulent Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the May 7 and May 15, 1997 orders which compel arbitration. Based on the record before it, the trial court properly determined that there was no fraud pertaining to the inclusion of .the arbitration clause in the Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. See Passerrello v. Robert L. Lipton, Inc., 690 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Ronbeck Constr. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Appellants’ theory of mutual mistake as a basis for rescission was not raised below and therefore cannot be raised on appeal. See Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co., 609 So. 2d 147, 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The slander of title and fraudulent hen claims were “[c]laims, disputes or other matters in question” that arose out of or “related to” the written contract between the parties. See Advantage Dental Health Plans Inc. v. Beneficial Adm’rs Inc., 683 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Appellees’ filing of a counterclaim to foreclose its lien did not constitute a waiver of its right to arbitrate. See McDaniel v. Berhalter, 405 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Concrete Design Structures, Inc. v. P.L. Dodge Found., Inc., 532 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sinatra v. Bussel, 119 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…exclusive use of the dock and boat slip [*476] by virtue of his ownership of the interest in the limited common element. However, because the Sinatras did not raise the issue in the trial court, we cannot address it on appeal. See Presley v. Szerdi, 708 So. 2d 335, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“Appellants’ theory ... was not raised below and therefore cannot be raised on appeal.”). The only remaining issue that must be resolved is whether the Bussels had authority to transfer their ownership interest in the limi…
Authorities Cited
- Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp. & Savanna Club Realty Inc., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Emp. Agency, 664 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- McDANIEL v. Berhalter, 405 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. OF Midwest, 609 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Jacques Valcin v. State, 690 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Concrete Design Structures, Inc. v. P.L. Dodge Found., Inc., 532 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Advantage Dental Health Plans Inc. v. Beneficial Administrators Inc., 683 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)