JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP; AND ROGER LARSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN FORIER, AN INDIVIDUAL; PARADISE LAKES RESORT, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; PLR MANAGEMENT, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; PARADISE LAKES RESORT REALTY, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND CABANA AT PARADISE, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Johnson Pope appeals the denial of their motion to compel arbitration. The circuit court refused to order arbitration, citing disputed factual issues about whether an arbitration agreement was properly formed. The appellate court reversed, holding that when disputed facts exist regarding the formation of an arbitration agreement, the trial court must conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing rather than simply denying the motion.
When a circuit court acknowledges the existence of disputed issues of fact concerning the formation of an arbitration agreement, it is required to conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing to resolve those factual disputes before ruling on a motion to compel arbitration.
[1] A court must conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing when a motion to compel arbitration presents disputed issues of fact concerning the formation of the arbitration agr…
[2] A circuit court's order denying a motion to compel arbitration based on disputed facts relating to the agreement's formation must be reversed and remanded for an evidenti…
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“because there obviously appears to be a major factual dispute as to the signing of the document [containing the arbitration provision] that I do not feel comfortable simply slating [sic] like a summary judgment”
Trial judge's explanation for denying the motion to compel arbitration, acknowledging disputed facts exist
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson Pope sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in a document. The opposing parties disputed whether the document containi…
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 Disputed Issues Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP, and Roger Larson (collectively, Johnson Pope) appeal the circuit court’s order that denied their motion to compel arbitration.1 After a nonevidentiary hearing on the motion that was originally scheduled for five minutes but lasted considerably longer, the trial judge declined to order arbitration and explained:
[Bjecause there obviously appears to be a major factual dispute as to the signing of the document [containing the arbitration provision] that I do not feel comfortable simply slating [sic] like a summary judgment. I’m not prepared to grant that right now under the circumstances with the factual disputes.
The circuit court subsequently entered a written order denying the motion to compel arbitration and directing Johnson Pope to respond to the plaintiffs’ complaint. In the order denying the motion to compel, the circuit court stated: “[T]he defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is denied at this time as the Court finds that there are disputed facts relating to the formation of the agreement which contains the arbitration provision.”
Johnson Pope moved for rehearing and requested an expedited evidentiary hearing on its motion in accordance with section 682.03(1), Florida Statutes (2008). The circuit court denied the motion for rehearing without explanation. This appeal followed.
The circuit court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration expressly acknowledged the existence of disputed issues of fact concerning the making of the agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the circuit court was required to conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing in order to resolve the matter. See Tandem Health Care of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Whitney, 897 So.2d 531, 532-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). For this reason, we reverse the order denying Johnson Pope’s motion to compel arbitration and remand for the circuit court to conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed issues of fact necessary to a ruling on the motion.
*453Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Forier, 67 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…the circumstances with the factual disputes.” On October 28, 2009, this court issued a per curiam opinion reversing the trial court’s order denying Johnson Pope’s motion to compel arbitration. See Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP v. Forier, 19 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The Forier court held: “The circuit court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration expressly acknowledged the existence of disputed issues of fact concerning the making of the agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the circ…
Authorities Cited
- Tandem Health Care OF ST. Petersburg, Inc. v. Whitney, 897 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)