WENDY BETTS, PETITIONER,
v.
FASTFUNDING THE COMPANY, INC., 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 accepted jurisdiction over a certified question regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements in payment instrument sales under Florida law. The Court quashed the Fifth District's decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of its intervening decision in McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, L.L.C. v. Betts.
The Court did not definitively resolve the certified question on the merits but instead quashed the lower court's decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of the intervening McKenzie decision and the Court's decision on remand in Cardegna, which provided controlling authority on the arbitration enforceability issue.
[1] A court may grant a petition for review and quash a lower court's decision when subsequent controlling precedent has been established.
[2] A case may be remanded for reconsideration in light of a controlling decision issued by a higher court.
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“The Fifth District Court of Appeal relied on Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 827 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), disapproved by McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, L.L.C. v. Betts, 928 So. 2d 1204 (Fla.2006)”
Establishes that the Fifth District's decision was based on precedent that was subsequently disapproved by intervening McKenzie decision
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWendy Betts entered into a transaction involving a payment instrument sale with FastFunding The Company, Inc. The transaction included an arbitration …
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 Certified Question Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review FastFunding The Co. v. Betts, 852 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal relied on Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 827 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), disapproved by McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, L.L.C. v. Betts, 928 So. 2d 1204 (Fla.2006), and certified a question of great public importance to this Court.1 The Fifth District also cited to an opinion from the Fourth District Court of Appeal that was pending before this Court. See Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 824 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), quashed, 894 So. 2d 860 (Fla.2005), rev’d, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006), and approved, 930 So. 2d 610 (Fla.2006). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
On May 24, 2005, this Court stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of McKenzie. After McKenzie was decided, this Court issued an order on June 21, 2006, directing the parties to show cause as to why this Court should not accept jurisdiction, quash the FastFunding decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of McKenzie.
We have considered the parties’ responses. We now grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in McKenzie and our decision on remand in Cardegna.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, and BELL, JJ., concur. CANTERO, J., concurs in result only with an opinion.
PARIENTE, J., did not participate.
. The Fifth District certified the following question: "Is an arbitration agreement enforceable when it is included as a requirement of a payment instrument sale executed pursuant to Florida Statute Chapter 560, Part II, and the arbitration is to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sections 1-16?” FastFunding, 852 So. 2d at 355.
CANTERO, J.,
concurring in result only.
I concur in the result because our decision in McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, L.L.C. v. Betts, 928 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2006), is now the precedent of this Court, and the majority simply remands to the district court for reconsideration in light of Betts as well as Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006). However, I continue to adhere to my opinion in Betts that the term “check cashing” as defined in the Money Transmitter’s Code, chapter 560, Florida Statutes (1997), includes deferred presentment transactions unless they involve a rollover for an additional fee. 928 So. 2d at 1211-18 (Cantero, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betts v. Fastfunding THE Co., Inc., 60 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ral forum pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 5. Any arbitrator so appointed shall consider the mandate from Betts, 951 So. 2d 116. [*1084] REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . Betts v. FastFunding The Company, Inc., 950 So. 2d 379 (Fla.2006).…
-
Fastfunding THE Co., Inc. v. Betts, 951 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. We consider this case on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. Betts v. Fast-Funding The Company, Inc., 950 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2006). In light of Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006), we reverse and remand this case to the circuit court with directions that it be referred to arbitration. Under Cardegna, the arb…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2006)
- McKENZIE Check Advance OF Fla., LLC. v. Betts, 928 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2006)
- Cardegna v. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., 894 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2005)
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 824 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Jacobs v. State, 827 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Reuter v. McKENZIE Check Advance OF Fla., LLC, 930 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2006)
- City OF Cocoa Beach v. Vacation Beach, Inc., 852 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)