BOSTON BANK OF COMMERCE D/B/A PEOPLES BANK OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER ASSET MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
RODOLFO MOREJON, 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.
Boston Bank of Commerce and Consumer Asset Management appealed a lower court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration in a dispute with borrower Rodolfo Morejon over a vehicle repossession and sale. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Florida law strongly favors arbitration and the arbitration clause in the note was sufficiently broad to encompass the remaining breach of contract claim.
The court held that the arbitration clause was sufficiently broad to encompass the breach of contract claim and that Florida law strongly favors resolution of disputes through arbitration. Accordingly, the bank's motion to compel arbitration should have been granted, and the case should be remanded with instructions to grant the motion.
[1] A broad arbitration clause encompassing contract and tort disputes is enforceable under Florida law.
[2] Florida law strongly favors the resolution of disputes by way of arbitration, resolving all doubts in favor of arbitration.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Florida law strongly favors the resolution of disputes by way of arbitration, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Middleton, 648 So.2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); EMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Mason, 677 So.2d 105, 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and courts are encouraged to resolve all doubts in favor of arbitration.”
Establishes the strong policy favoring arbitration under Florida law that guides interpretation of arbitration clauses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorejon borrowed $15,327.90 from Jefferson Bank in April 1995 to purchase a 1986 Porsche, secured by the vehicle. The loan agreement contained a broad…
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 Arbitration Clause Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Boston Bank of Commerce, d/b/a Peoples Bank of Commerce, (Bank), and Consumer Asset Management Inc. (CAM), appeal the lower court’s non-final order denying their motion to compel arbitration.
On April 3, 1995, Rodolfo Morejon entered into a form Note, Disclosure and Security Agreement with Jefferson Bank. Pursuant to the Note, Morejon borrowed $15,327.90 to purchase a 1986 Porsche, which was security for repayment of the debt. The Note required fifty-nine equal payments and a final “balloon” payment of $7,274.05, due April 3, 2000. The Note further provided an arbitration clause which read as follows:
Lender and [Morejon] agree that all disputes, claims and controversies between us, whether individual, joint, or class in nature, arising from this Agreement or otherwise, including without limitation contract and tort disputes, shall be arbitrated pursuant to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, upon request of either party.... Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude any party from seeking equitable relief from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Bank contracted the servicing of the loan to CAM. On March 18, 2000, CAM advised Morejon that he still owed $13,292.49, plus per diem, and this sum was to be paid on or before April 3, 2000. This sum included insurance purchased by Bank. Morejon objected and advised that the vehicle had always been insured. The objection was ignored and CAM apparently hired American Lenders Service Corp. to repossess the vehicle. Bank notified Morejon that they would sell the vehicle within ten days unless the amount due was paid. Morejon, through counsel, offered to pay the correct amount owed the bank, however, this “tender” was also ignored. The car was sold to a third party for $5,750 (of which, $4,300 was received by CAM for Morejon’s account).
Thereafter, Morejon filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, conversion and replevin. In response, Bank filed a motion to dismiss, stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to the Note, with a supporting memorandum of law. On January 9, 2001, the lower court held a hearing on the Motion.
The complaint’s claims in equity were dismissed, and, on January 10, 2001, the lower court entered a non-final Order denying Bank’s Motion to Dismiss, Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration. Bank obtained a stay to bring this appeal. We reverse.
The note that is the subject of this litigation contains an extremely general arbitration clause. It subjects not only contractual but also tort claims to arbitra tion upon request of either party. Florida law strongly favors the resolution of disputes by way of arbitration, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Middleton, 648 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); EMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Mason, 677 So. 2d 105, 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and courts are encouraged to resolve all doubts in favor of arbitration. Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The contract in question provides one exception to the expressed desire of the parties to arbitrate disputes: “Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude any party from seeking equitable relief from a court of competent jurisdiction.” Although Mo-rejon included two such claims in his complaint, both were dismissed.1 Accordingly, the only remaining count was for breach of contract. Under the terms of the contract, Bank’s motion to compel arbitration should have been granted.
We reverse and remand .«with instructions to grant Bank’s motion to compel arbitration.
. The record does not reflect any motion for leave to amend.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MV Ins. Consultants, LLC v. Nafh Nat'l Bank & Allstate Ins. Co., 87 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ds on the intent of the parties to the contract. Id. It is well-established that Florida law and public policy strongly favors arbitration, and courts are encouraged to resolve all doubts in favor of arbitration. Boston Bank of Commerce v. Morejon, 786 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). However, in determining whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute, arbitration provisions are to be construed following general principles of contract interpretation, Idearc Media Corp. v. M.R. [*99] Fried…
-
Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Bio-Mass Tech, Inc., 136 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ration because it was a controversy “touching or arising ... out of the[ ] contract” and that by filing counterclaim for replevin and obtaining such affirmative relief, party waived right to arbitration); see also Boston Bank of Commerce v. Morejon, 786 So. 2d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (suggesting that claims for conversion and replevin were claims for equitable relief that would have been exempt from arbitration provision [*702] stating that “[n]othing in this [a]greement shall preclude any party from see…
-
Johan F. Hagstrom v. Co.fe.me. USA Marine Exhaust, LLC, 322 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…oubts regarding arbitrability are resolved in favor of arbitration. Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479, 109 S. Ct. 1248, 1256, 103 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1989); see also Bos. Bank of Com. v. Morejon, 786 So. 2d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In accord with these principles, the role of the court in determining arbitrability is limited to the following inquiries: “(1) whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) whether an arbitrable issue exis…
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
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. & Richard Nerndt v. Middleton, 648 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Emsa Ltd. P'ship v. Mason, 677 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)