DAVID B. KESLER, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
CHATFIELD DEAN & CO., RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court resolved whether trial courts may determine entitlement to attorneys' fees when an arbitration award fails to specify the legal basis (common law or statutory) upon which the claimant prevailed. The Court held that ambiguous arbitration awards are inadequate and trial courts may remand to the arbitration panel for clarification or determine fees themselves based on available findings.
Where a party brings arbitration claims based on multiple theories, some providing for attorneys' fees, the arbitration award must specify the theory under which the claimant prevailed or clearly indicate whether the claimant prevailed on a fee-bearing theory. If the award fails to reflect such findings, the trial court may remand the matter to the arbitration panel for clarification, or an award without a basis is per se inadequate and subject to correction by the trial court.
[1] Where an arbitration award fails to specify the theory under which a claimant prevailed, and one or more of the asserted claims would support an award of attorney's fees,…
[2] A trial court has the authority to determine entitlement to attorneys' fees subsequent to arbitration proceedings when the arbitration award does not clearly indicate the…
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“We hold today that where a party brings claims in arbitration based upon several theories, one or more of which provide for the recovery of attorney's fees, the arbitration award must specify the theory under which the claimant prevailed, or otherwise clearly indicate whether the claimant has prevailed on a theory that would permit the trial court to award fees.”
States the core holding regarding the requirement for arbitration awards to specify the legal basis for prevailing claims involving potential attorneys' fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKesler asserted both common law and statutory claims in arbitration proceedings. The arbitration award did not specify whether Kesler prevailed on com…
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 Remand For Clarification cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, J.
A petition for jurisdiction was filed to review the decision in Chatfield Dean & Co. v. Kesler, 749 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), alleging conflict with Tumberry Associates v. Service Station Aid, Inc., 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1995), and Charbonneau v. Morse Operations, Inc., 727 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Though there was no conflict between Chatfield Dean and the two cases, we granted review pursuant to Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981), as this Court was at the time in the process of determining the identical issue in its review of the case of Barron Chase Securities, Inc. v. Moser, 745 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
The sole issue resolved below was whether the trial court had the authority to determine the entitlement to attorneys’ fees relating and subsequent to arbitration proceedings in which the claimant asserted both common law claims, which would not support entitlement to attorneys’ fees, and statutory claims, which would. Specifically, to what extent could the trial court address the entitlement issue where the arbitration award failed to indicate the basis of such award (i.e., common law or statutory)? The Second District found that the trial court lacked the authority as it held “[t]he trial court did not have a basis upon which to grant attorney’s fees because the arbitration award did not specify the theory upon which Kesler -had prevailed.” Chatfield Dean, 749 So. 2d at 543.1
In our recently issued opinion reviewing the Second District’s Moser decision, however, we held otherwise and stated the following:
We hold today that where a party brings claims in arbitration based upon several theories, one or more of which provide for the recovery of attorney’s fees, the arbitration award must specify the theory under which the claimant prevailed, or otherwise clearly indicate whether'the claimant has prevailed on a theory that would permit the trial court to award fees. In the event that the award fails to reflect such a finding, the circuit court may remand the matter to the arbitration panel for the purpose of resolving the issue. Thereafter, the circuit court may determine the fee issue in accord with the finding of the arbitrators.
... We conclude that to the extent that knowledge of the basis of an award is necessary for the subsequent determination of an entitlement to attorney’s fees, an award without a basis is per se inadequate and subject to correction by the trial court. .
Moser v. Barron Chase Securities, Inc., 783 So. 2d 231, 236-37 (Fla.2001).
Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Second District to the extent it is inconsistent with our ruling in Moser, and remand this case to the district court for farther proceedings in this cause consistent with our ruling in Moser. It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . In support of this holding, the Second District relied on its Moser opinion, which, as previously stated, was pending our review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Landing Grp. OF Tampa, Inc. v. Stefan R. Kifner and Tammy Kifner, 951 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…nder which the claimant prevailed, or otherwise clearly indicate whether the claimant has 'prevailed on a theory that would permit the trial court to award fees. Moser, 783 So. 2d at 236-37 (emphasis added); see also Kesler v. Chatfield Dean & Co., 794 So. 2d 577 (Fla.2001); Kirchner v. Interfirst Capital Corp., 732 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“Although the arbitrator must indicate that the one seeking attorney’s fees prevailed on a cause of action authorizing fees, this indication may be either direct o…
-
Chatfield Dean & Co., Inc. v. Kesler, 818 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. This casé is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of Florida. Kesler v. Chatfield Dean & Co., 794 So. 2d 577 (Fla.2001) (Chatfield Dean II). In this court’s earlier decision, we determined that Kesler was not entitled to att [*573] orney's fees arising out of an arbitration proceeding. Chatfield Dean & Co. v. Kesler, 749 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (Cha…
-
A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. v. Select Contracting, Inc., 865 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ssary for the subsequent determination of an entitlement to attorney’s fees, an award without a basis is per se inadequate and subject to correction by the trial court. 783 So. 2d at 236-37 (emphasis added). See also Kesler v. Chatfield Dean & Co., 794 So. 2d 577 (Fla.2001). We do not interpret Moser’s holding to mean that the arbitrator is required to determine entitlement to fees where the parties have not submitted the issue to arbitration. Instead, the arbitrator is merely required to state the basis up…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Turnberry Assocs. v. Serv. Station AID, Inc., 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1995)
- Moser v. Barron Chase Sec., Inc., 783 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2001)
- Pelton v. Singletary, 727 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Sigler v. State, 727 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Barron Chase Sec., Inc. v. Moser, 745 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Chatfield Dean & Co., Inc. v. Kesler, 749 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)