JALIS CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PETER MINTZ, 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.
Jalis Construction appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration, arguing the court must first determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists before ruling on the motion to compel. The appellate court reverses, holding that under Florida's Arbitration Code, the trial court is required to conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues about the existence of an arbitration agreement as part of ruling on the motion to compel.
The trial court is required by the Florida Arbitration Code to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists as part of ruling on the motion to compel arbitration. The court must conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing to resolve any disputed issues about the making of the arbitration agreement, even when the complaint seeks judicial determination of the underlying contract's existence.
[1] A trial court must determine the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement before ruling on a motion to compel arbitration.
[2] When a party disputes the making or validity of an arbitration agreement, the trial court is mandated to summarily hear and determine that issue.
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“Under the Florida Arbitration Code, section 682.03(1), Florida Statutes (1997), when the party opposing arbitration disputes the existence or validity of an agreement to arbitrate, the trial court is to resolve that question as part of the ruling on the motion to compel arbitration.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement that trial courts must address arbitration agreement disputes during the motion to compel ruling
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJalis Construction contracted with Peter Mintz to sell a vacant lot and construct a house on it. Mintz filed suit seeking declaratory relief, includin…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Jalis Construction, Inc., appeals an order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Jalis contracted with appellee to sell a vacant lot and construct a house on that lot. Appellee’s suit seeks declaratory relief, including a determination of whether the parties had a sufficient meeting of the minds to enter a valid contract.
Jalis moved to compel arbitration under the contract that is the subject of the complaint for declaratory relief. The trial court denied the motion, finding that arbitration would not be available until after there had been a decision on the merits of the appellee’s complaint as to the existence of a valid contract. Because we agree with Jalis that the trial court was required to determine whether the parties had a valid arbitration agreement before ruling on the motion to compel arbitration, we reverse.
Under the Florida Arbitration Code, section 682.03(1), Florida Statutes (1997), when the party opposing arbitration disputes the existence or validity of an agreement to arbitrate, the trial court is to resolve that question as part of the ruling on the motion to compel arbitration.1 The language of the statute is mandatory. As this court explained in Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 425 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 433 So. 2d 519 (Fla.1983):
“[I]f the court finds disputed issues regarding the making of the agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the same, the court is mandated to ‘summarily hear and determine the issue.... ’ In our view, the latter requirement contemplates an expedited evidentiary hearing.”
425 So. 2d at 129.
We read the statute as requiring a preliminary summary disposition even where, as here, the complaint seeks a judicial determination of the existence of the agreement. The order denying arbitration is reversed. On remand the trial court shall hold an expedited evidentiary hearing to determine the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
POLEN, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . That section provides:
"A party to an agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law claiming the neglect or refusal of another party thereto to comply therewith may make application to the court for an order directing the parties to proceed with arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof. If the court is satisfied that no substantial issue exists as to the making of the agreement or provision, it shall grant the application. If the court shall find that a substantial issue is raised as to the making of the agreement or provision, it shall summarily hear and determine the issue and, according to its determination, shall grant or deny the application." [e.s.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. RAY Carter Auto Sales, Inc., 745 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…e here, a party opposing arbitration disputes the existence or validity of the agreement to arbitrate, the trial court must resolve that issue as a part of its consideration of the motion seeking to compel arbitration. Jal-is Constr., Inc. v. Mintz, 724 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). If necessary, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith v. Melamed, 425 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Because the trial court did not resolve that issue here, we reverse…
-
Tandem Health Care OF ST. Petersburg, Inc. v. Whitney, 897 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ere are disputed issues concerning the making of the agreement, the statutory requirement that the court “shall summarily hear and determine the issue” contemplates an expedited evidentiary hearing. Id. at 129; see also Jalis Constr., Inc. v. Mintz, 724 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The statutory directives are mandatory in nature. Acumen Constr., Inc. v. Neher, 616 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). There are cases in which the trial court can determine the existence of an agreement to arbitrate without co…
-
Houchins v. King Motor Co. OF Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 906 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…Because the first agreement may have failed on the financing contingency and the second agreement was not before the court, a question existed as to the validity of the arbitration agreement relied on by King. In Jalis Construction, Inc. v. Mintz, 724 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we held that where a party opposing arbitration asserts that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable, the trial court errs in deciding the motion before making a determination as to whether a valid arbitration agreement exist…
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
- Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 425 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)