AMERICAN HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND WILLIAM H. ZIBELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
HERBERT HELPRIN, AN INDIVIDUAL, HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF PEMBROKE PINES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LEE STUART, AN INDIVIDUAL, 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.
The denial of a motion to dismiss based on an arbitration clause is not an appealable interlocutory order. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding it was not a matter of jurisdiction over the person but over the subject matter, which is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal.
[1] An interlocutory appeal is not permitted from a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss based on an arbitration clause, as such a ruling pertains to subject matter ju…
[2] Jurisdiction over the person typically concerns issues such as service of process or the applicability of long-arm statutes to non-residents.
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 intelligenceAppellant sought to dismiss a lawsuit based on a contract clause requiring arbitration prior to litigation. The trial court denied the motion to dismi…
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 Jurisdiction Over The Subject Matter cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The opinion filed Febuary 21, 1978, is herewith withdrawn.
The ruling of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss, filed by the appellant at the trial level, is affirmed.
The basis for said motion was that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the person, because the disputed contract contained a clause for arbitration prior to any lawsuit.1 The appellee below argued that even if such were so, the right to arbitration had been waived by the conduct of the appellant.
We do not believe we can reach the merits of this cause. The appellants contend that Fla.App. Rule 4.2 permits interlocutory appeals from pre-trial orders relating to jurisdiction over the person. That is correct, but we disagree that the denial of the instant motion to dismiss was such an appealable order. To us, jurisdiction over the person, for example, refers to service of process, or the applicability of the long arm statute to non-residents. Paradis v. Cicero, 167 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). In the case at bar, we perceive the problem to be one of jurisdiction over the subject matter, not reviewable by interlocutory proceeding.
It is true that we could treat this matter as one of common law certiorari, but we believe that there is full, adequate and complete remedy available after final judgment in this case. Siegal v. Abramowitz, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). It would be both convenient and saving of costly, protracted and possibly useless litigation, if we were to agree to review all rulings of trial judges as they occur. However, such is impractical when one considers the resulting logistics of such a course, coupled with those who would immediately subvert it for dilatory purposes.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur. . Although harmless in the light of our conclusion, Article VIII of the contract allegedly containing the arbitration clause was not included in the record on appeal. Thus, we certainly could not have interpreted same.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass'n, Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1982)…class did not raise a question of personal jurisdiction: As used in rule 9.130, the term “jurisdiction of the person” refers to service of process or the applicability of the long arm statute to nonresidents. American Health Association v. Helprin, 357 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The defendants in the present case have not raised such matters. Indeed, it would not even be their place to do so on behalf of the plaintiffs. The right to challenge jurisdiction has always been reserved to the person over whom…
-
Sanford H. Cole, M.D. v. Posada, 555 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…985); Page v. Ezell, 452 So. 2d 582 (Fla.3d DCA 1984); National Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Association, Inc., 395 So. 2d 592 (Fla.2d DCA 1981), approved, 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla.1982); American Health Association, Inc. v. Helprin, 357 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). It relates to “matters concerning the court’s jurisdiction or power to bind [defendants] to any ultimate decision rendered in the case.” Department of Professional Regulation v. Rentfast, Inc., 467 So. 2d 486, 487 (Fla. 5th DCA…
-
Nat'l Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass'n, Inc., 395 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…or not the court had jurisdiction over those plaintiffs. As used in rule 9.130, the term “jurisdiction of the person” refers to service of process or the applicability of the long arm statute to nonresidents. American Health Association v. Helprin, 357 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The defendants in the present case have not raised such matters. Indeed, it would not even be their place to do so on behalf of the plaintiffs. The right to challenge jurisdiction has always been reserved to the person over whom…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Humphrey v. Seminole Cnty. Court, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Roy F. Paradis and R. v. Hemphill, 167 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)