PULTE HOME CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BAY AT CYPRESS CREEK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., 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.
Pulte Home Corporation appealed the circuit court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration of a homeowners' association's building code violation claim. The court held that arbitration agreements apply to statutory claims, not just breach of warranty claims, and that subsequent purchasers who assume the limited warranty are bound by the arbitration provision as third-party beneficiaries.
The arbitration agreement applies to statutory claims as well as breach of warranty claims. Subsequent purchasers who are permitted to assume Pulte's Limited Warranty are third-party beneficiaries to the warranty and can be compelled to arbitrate statutory claims.
[1] An agreement to arbitrate applies to statutory claims as well as claims for breach of warranty.
[2] Subsequent purchasers who are third-party beneficiaries to a contract containing an arbitration provision can be compelled to arbitrate.
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 agreement to arbitrate applies to statutory claims as well as to claims for breach of warranty.”
Establishes the core holding that arbitration agreements are not limited to warranty breaches but extend to statutory claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe HOA brought an action against Pulte for alleged building code violations under section 553.84, Florida Statutes. Pulte sought to compel arbitratio…
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 Scope Of Arbitration Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte) seeks review of the circuit court’s order denying its renewed motion to compel arbitration of an action brought by Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (the HOA), for alleged building code violations under section 553.84, Florida Statutes (2011).1 We reverse the order under review on the authority of Pulte Home Corp. v. Vermillion Homeowners Ass’n, 109 So.3d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
The HOA made a tactical decision to plead its amended complaint as an action based on a statutory violation instead of as an action for breach of warranty. The HOA argues that it cannot be compelled to arbitrate its statutory claim. We disagree. The agreement to arbitrate applies to statutory claims as well as to claims for breach of warranty. See Reeves v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 937 So.2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (requiring the arbitration of a claim under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So.2d 259, 261-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (noting that claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act may be submitted to arbitration); Beazer Homes Corp. v. Bailey, 940 So.2d 453, 461-62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (same); Aztec Med. Sens., Inc. v. Burger, 792 So.2d 617, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (collecting cases in which statutory claims have been held to be subject to arbitration). We also reject the HOA’s argument that subsequent purchasers of the units at the development are not bound by the arbitration agreement. Because the subsequent purchasers are permitted to assume Pulte’s Limited Warranty in favor of the initial purchasers, the subsequent purchasers are “third party beneficiaries to the Limited Warranty and can be compelled to arbitrate.” Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Cos. v. Pulte Home Corp., 2005 WL 1345779, at *4 (M.D.Fla. June 6, 2005); see also J. Douglas Uloth & J. Hamilton Rial, III, Equitable Estoppel as a Basis for Compelling Nonsignatories to Arbitrate — A Bridge Too Far?, 21 Rev. Litig. 593, 602 (Summer 2002) (“[A]s a basic derivative of the principle that a third-party beneficiary steps into the shoes of a contracting party and is subject to all provisions of contract, a third-party beneficiary of a contract containing an arbitration provision can be compelled to arbitrate.”).
We have considered the HOA’s remaining arguments for affirmance, and we find them to be without merit. The remaining arguments do not warrant discussion.
We reverse the order denying Pulte’s renewed motion to compel arbitration, and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mendez v. Hampton Court Nursing Ctr., LLC, 203 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 2016)…al Estate, Inc., 778 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“[A] third party beneficiary to a contract can be compelled to arbitrate.”). Further, the Second District recently held, in Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 118 So. 3d 957, 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), that third-party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitrate. In a parenthetical, the Second District explained that, “[a]s a basic derivative of the principle that a third-party beneficiary steps into the shoes of a contrac…
-
Anderson v. Taylor Morrison OF Fla., Inc., 223 So. 3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…dy for all disputes” arising from or related to the Warranty and all issues with the home or property, it precludes their ability to pursue their statutory claim. The Builder also cites to Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Ass’n, 118 So. 3d 957, 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), in which this court recognized that statutory claims for violation, of a building code can be subject to arbitration. But there the arbitration agreement applied to claims for breach of warranty and statutory claims. Id. He…
-
Oakmont Custom Homes, LLC v. Billings (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…otherwise depend on the building agreement. The trial court concluded that Billings could not be compelled to arbitrate under these facts. We agree. The builder asks this Court to follow Pulte Home Corp. v. Bay at Cypress Creek Homeowners’ Ass’n, 118 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), which reversed an order denying a builder’s motion to compel arbitration of an HOA’s complaint that alleged a statutory violation. The Second District reversed pursuant to Pulte Home Corp. v. Vermillion Homeowners Ass’n, 109 So.…
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
- Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- In the Interest of A.G. v. Dep't Of Child. & Fam. Servs., 872 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Aztec Med. Servs., Inc. v. Robert Burger, M.D., 792 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Beazer Homes Corp. v. Bailey, 940 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Reeves v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., 937 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Pulte Home Corp. v. Vermillion Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 109 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)