JOHN CHAPMAN AND TERRY G. VILLAIRE, APPELLANTS,
v.
KING MOTOR COMPANY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that a party challenging an arbitration clause as unconscionable is entitled to an evidentiary hearing before being compelled to arbitrate.
Appellants sued for violations of consumer protection statutes and fraud in an automobile purchase, alleging the arbitration clause was unconscionable…
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 Substantive Unconscionability cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
In this appeal, appellants/plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s order requiring the parties to arbitrate their case before they had the opportunity to conduct discovery and have an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the 'unconscionability of the arbitration clause. Because we conclude that an evidentiary hearing is required, we reverse.
Appellants filed a complaint for violations of the Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for fraud and deceit in connection with the purchase of an automobile from defendant. They further alleged that the arbitration agreement contained in the documents they signed was unconscionable. Without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered the case to arbitration.
A trial court’s decision on the validity of an arbitration agreement is a matter of contract interpretation subject to de novo review. See Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v. LVWD, Ltd., 766 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). To support a finding of unconscionability sufficient to invalidate an arbitration clause, the court must find that the contract is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. See Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So. 2d 570, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). On its face, the terms of the arbitration provision in this case reveal similar concerns as to its substantive un-conscionability as were found in Poivertel where it required appellants to waive certain legal remedies, including their consumer rights under the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. See id. at 576. See also Bellsouth Mobility LLC v. Christopher, 819 So. 2d 171, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Appellants’ allegations of procedural unconscionability also raise issues of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing.
We therefore reverse and remand for the court to conduct an evidentiary hear ing on the validity of the arbitration clause.
STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betzaida Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…. v. Jeffries, 885 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Stewart Agency, Inc. v. Robinson, 855 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Consol. Resources Healthcare Fund I, Ltd. v. Fenelus, 853 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Chapman v. King Motor Co. of So. Fla., 833 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); BellSouth Mobility LLC v. Christopher, 819 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Gainesville Health Care, 857 So. 2d 278; Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Romano v. Manor Care, Inc., 861 So. 2d 59…
-
Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…the contract are unreasonable and unfair.” 743 So. 2d at 574. In Romano, Richmond Healthcare, Inc. v. Digati, 878 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), Bellsouth Mobility, LLC v. Christopher, 819 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Chapman v. King Motor, 833 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), all cases involving remedial statutes, we engaged in an unconscionability analysis. We now clarify that holding a contractual provision unenforceable because it defeats the remedial provisions of a statute, and is thus contrary…
-
BDO Seidman, LLP v. BEE, 970 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “However, the standard of review applicable to the trial court’s construction of an arbitration provision, and to its application of the law to the facts found, is de novo.” Id. See also Chapman v. King Motor Co. of S. Fla., 833 So. 2d 820, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (a trial court’s decision on the validity of an arbitration agreement is a matter of contract interpretation subject to de novo review). As the trial court determined that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable becaus…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v. LVWD, Ltd., 766 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Bellsouth Mobility LLC v. Christopher, 819 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)