WILLIAM VENETOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
FOTINA A. PAPAS, 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.
Venetoff appeals a final judgment based on an arbitration award, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion for rehearing due to lack of notice and by entering judgment despite his timely motion for trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that a party may file a partial motion for trial challenging only part of an arbitrator's award, and remanded for trial on the merits.
Yes to both issues. The trial court erred in denying the rehearing motion without an evidentiary hearing on the notice issue. More significantly, the trial court erred in entering judgment because Venetoff filed a timely motion for trial, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h) does not restrict a party from specifying only part of an award to challenge in a motion for trial.
[1] A party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the issue of whether notice was received has been raised.
[2] A motion for trial following a nonbinding arbitration award is not void if it specifies only a part of the award that the party seeks to challenge.
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“A party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the issue of whether notice was received has been raised.”
Establishes the standard for challenging denial of a motion for rehearing based on lack of notice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1995, Venetoff sued Papas to enforce an express trust; Papas counterclaimed for damages and demanded trial by jury. The trial court referred the ca…
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 Nonbinding Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Venetoff appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court embodying the terms of an arbitration award. Vene-toff correctly argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for rehearing on the ground that he did not receive notice of the hearing on the underlying motions. However, because Venetoff is also correct that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment when he had filed a demand for trial, we reverse for a trial on the merits.
In 1995, Venetoff filed a civil action against Papas, seeking enforcement of an express trust. Papas filed a counterclaim seeking a judgment for damages and demanded a trial by jury.
The trial court entered an order of referral to nonbinding arbitration. The arbitrator subsequently entered monetary awards to both Venetoff and Papas. Following the entry of the arbitrator’s awards, Venetoff timely filed a motion for trial, seeking review of “Arbitrators Award to [Papas], NOT the award to [Venetoff].” Papas filed an objection to Venetoffis motion for trial and a notice of hearing on “all pending Motions.” Vene-toff did not attend the hearing, and the trial court entered a judgment on the arbitrator’s award. Venetoff subsequently filed a motion for rehearing in which he explained that he was absent from the hearing because Papas had not sent him a notice as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(d).
The trial court denied the motion and this timely appeal follows.
On appeal, Venetoff argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for rehearing on the issue of whether he received notice. We agree. A party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the issue of whether notice was received has been raised. See Elmariah v. Associates Fin. Servs. Corp., 401 So. 2d 929, 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Because we find merit in Venetoffs second argument, we do not reverse for an evidentiary hearing on notice, but reverse for a trial on the merits.
Venetoffs second argument challenges the trial court’s entry of a judgment on the arbitrator’s awards after Venetoff had filed a motion for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h), regarding hearing procedures in nonbinding arbitration, provides, in pertinent part: “If a motion for trial is not made within 20 days of service on the parties of the decision, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge, who shall enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision.” It'is undisputed that Venetoff filed a motion for trial within the twenty-day time limit. Papas argues that because-Venetoff filed a motion for trial as to only part of the arbitrator’s award, the motion is void.
The trial court accepted this argument, but we find no legal support for it. There is no restriction in the rules or case law that prohibits a motion from specifying the part of the award the party seeks to challenge.
Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to enter a judgment on the arbitrator’s award in this case.
We reverse and remand for a trial de novo on the issue of liability in both the civil action and the counterclaim.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, C.J., and PATTERSON and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bacon Fam. P'rs, L.P. v. Apollo Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 852 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc., 600 So. 2d 511, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). A party may properly serve a motion for trial that specifies the part of the arbitrator’s award which the party seeks to challenge. See Venetoff v. Papas, 732 So. 2d 453, 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). ANALYSIS The Association advanced three arguments in the trial court and on this appeal in support of the trial court’s decision to strike Bacon’s motion for trial and enter final judgment without further proceedings in th…
-
Shelley v. State, 846 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…evenue, 742 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (reversing for an evidentiary hearing, because appellant’s sworn motion to vacate paternity judgment sufficiently raised an issue of fact as to whether he received notice of the hearing); Venetoff v. Papas, 732 So. 2d 453, 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“A party is enti- [*580] tied to an evidentiary hearing when the issue of whether notice was received has been raised.”). As the Fifth District stated in Power v. Grow Group, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), when i…
-
Morgan v. Se. Serv. Corp., 861 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…-binding arbitration.... Each claim by this plaintiff against each separate defendant stands alone and can be treated ... entirely separate from and alternative to the other claims. Id. at 1239-40 (emphasis in original). See also Venetoff v. Papas, 732 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding plaintiffs motion for trial de novo of award in counterclaim only, but not of damages awarded in main cause of action was not void and remanding for a trial de novo of both the main cause of action and the counterclaim).…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Ahmed M. Elmariah v. Assocs. Fin. Servs. Corp., 401 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)