LEONARD KEST, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID NATHANSON ET AL., 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.
Leonard Kest appeals the denial of his motion to confirm an arbitration award in a construction dispute with David Nathanson. The court holds that arbitration awards under Florida's arbitration code can only be set aside on grounds specified in the statute, and remands for proper consideration of the parties' applications under the relevant statutory framework.
An arbitration award resulting from a valid and binding arbitration agreement can only be set aside on grounds specified in Florida Statutes § 57.22. The court must consider the complaint as an application to vacate the award and the answer/counterclaim as a request to confirm the award, proceeding under the exclusive statutory provisions for arbitration in F.S.A. §§ 57.10-57.31.
“The parties in this cause entered into a valid and binding arbitration agreement and were bound by the decision of the arbiter unless set aside in accordance with the arbitration code.”
Establishes the binding nature of arbitration agreements and that awards can only be challenged under statutory grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKest and Nathanson entered a contract for construction of a custom home. After substantial completion, a dispute arose and the parties agreed to arbit…
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 Florida Arbitration Code cases and more on FLexlaw
Leonard Kest, defendant, appeals an order denying his motion for confirmation of *691an arbitration award made against David Nathanson et ux.
Leonard Kest entered into an agreement for the construction of a custom built home for David Nathanson and Helen Nathan-son. A dispute arose after the construction was substantially completed. The parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate which acknowledged that the arbitration was to be binding and enforceable upon the parties. William F. Hunter, Jr., was selected by the parties to be the sole arbiter.
Hunter took testimony, examined contract documents and plans, viewed the construction site and rendered his arbitration award. David Nathanson declined to be bound by the arbitration award and instituted an action against the defendants for breach of contract. Nathanson’s affidavit contains statements which, if true, might be sufficient to deny confirmation of the award on the grounds set forth in F.S.A. § 57.22.
The defendant, Kest, by answer, set forth the arbitration agreement and the award and moved pursuant to F.S.A. § 57.21 for confirmation of the award.
Florida adopted an arbitration code as Laws of Florida, 1957, chapter 57-402. Said chapter by section 23 thereof repealed all laws in conflict therewith and is now a part of Florida Statutes as sections 57.10 through 57.31, inclusive. Accordingly, the provisions for arbitration now in effect, F.S.A. §§ 57.10 through 57.31, are the exclusive statutory proceedings for the determination of arbitrations where provided by contract either at the time of the execution of the contract or at the time the dispute arises.
The parties in this cause entered into a valid and binding arbitration agreement and were bound by the decision of the arbiter unless set aside in accordance with the arbitration code. An award as a result of such an arbitration could only be set aside on the basis of the grounds set forth in section 57.22. Bohlmann v. Allstate Insurance Co., Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 23. The Court in the case of Arnold’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Larson, Fla.App. 1963, 149 So.2d 380, was not called upon to consider the issue raised in this appeal.
Accordingly, the cause is reversed with directions that the court consider the Nathanson complaint as an application to vacate the award of the arbiter, the answer and counterclaim of Kest as a request to confirm the award and proceed to determine the issues in accordance with the provisions of F.S.A. §§ 57.10 through 57.31, inclusive.
Coronet Kitchens, Inc., a subcontractor, was permitted to intervene. The final order of court should determine the dispute between Nathanson and said subcontractor.
Reversed with directions.
WALDEN, J., and STURGIS, WALLACE E. Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Martin, 399 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…rbitration and the circuit court proceedings below did not adversely affect the substantial rights of the appellant so as to interfere with an appropriate determination of the merits,1 Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844 (Fla.1954); Rest v. Nathanson, 184 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Section 682.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1979); (b) In view of the clear and unre-butted testimony that a simple mistake had been made, the policy was properly reformed to change the named insured from Felix Martin to Francisco…
-
Harris v. Haught, 435 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…n this case seeking damages for appellant’s failure to comply with the arbitration award, the trial court properly treated this proceeding as an application for confirmation of the arbitration award in accordance with Chapter 682. Kest v. Nathanson, 184 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). . We only hold that the release provision in such agreement does not operate to bar appellant’s $5600 liability to appellee in the accounting regarding the H-M-H partnership and that the counterclaim Harris attempted to file di…
-
Lopez & Roque Tile Co., Inc. v. Clearwater Dev. Corp., 291 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…suit for breach of contract within ninety days of the arbitration award, there remains the question of whether its complaint could be construed as a motion to vacate under F.S. 682.13, F.S.A. Our sister court in Kest v. Nathanson, Fla.App.4th, 1966, 184 So. 2d 690, considered a complaint for breach of contract as an application to vacate an arbitration award. However, the question of timely filing was not in issue, and the complaint was apparently accompanied by an affidavit containing statements which, if tr…
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
- Bohlmann v. Allstate Ins. Co., 171 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Arnold's Rest., Inc. v. Larson, 149 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)