FLORIDA CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
v.
BISHOP
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.
A trial court must confirm an arbitration award exactly as made, including all conditions precedent, and cannot modify the award without proper statutory authority to do so.
[1] A trial court must confirm an arbitration award as made when it does not modify, correct, or vacate the award pursuant to statutory grounds.
[2] A final judgment confirming an arbitration award must include all conditions present in the original award.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“confirm the award as made”
Court's statement of the statutory requirement under Fla. Stat. § 682.14(2)
Florida Capital Group and Bishop, a former executive, arbitrated a dispute over Bishop's severance payment under the AAA. The arbitrator awarded the s…
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 Vacating Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 28, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-1775 Lower Tribunal No. 11-31114
________________
Florida Capital Group, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Bart S. Bishop,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, John Schlesinger, Judge.
Akerman LLP, Kristen M. Fiore (Tallahassee) and Christopher S. Duke (West Palm Beach), for appellant.
Damian & Valori, LLP, Melanie E. Damian, Mary Claire Espenkotter and Allison J. Leonard, for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, and LUCK, JJ.
FERNANDEZ, J.
Florida Capital Group, Inc. appeals the trial court’s order granting Bart S.
Bishop’s motion to vacate dismissal and entry of the final judgment confirming payment of Bishop’s severance package awarded in arbitration. Because the final judgment does not include the condition of approval contained in the arbitration award, we reverse the final judgment. We affirm the vacatur of the dismissal order without further discussion.
Pursuant to an arbitration agreement, Florida Capital, a bank holding company, and Bishop, a former executive of Florida Capital, submitted a dispute to the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) regarding Bishop’s severance payment. The parties stipulated that the severance payment constituted a “golden parachute payment,” as Florida Capital was deemed to be in a “troubled condition.” See 12 C.F.R. § 359.1(f) (2011). AAA awarded payment of Bishop’s severance, conditioned on Florida Capital obtaining the necessary approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). See 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (2011).1
Upon motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award, the trial court entered the final judgment confirming payment but did not include the condition of approval. Because the trial court did not modify or correct the award pursuant to section 682.10 or section 682.14, Florida Statutes, or vacate the award pursuant to
section 682.13, Florida Statutes, see § 682.12, Fla. Stat. (2016), it was required to
“confirm the award as made,” see § 682.14(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter final judgment in conformity with the award as made;
i.e., condition payment upon required approval from the OCC and the FDIC.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.