Narrative Opinion Summary
In an interlocutory appeal, appellants contested a lower court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court evaluated whether it had jurisdiction to review the order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, which does not recognize interlocutory orders denying arbitration for review. Appellants relied on the Florida Arbitration Code, Section 682.20(1)(a), claiming it granted appellate rights. However, the court highlighted that procedural rules established by the Florida Supreme Court supersede conflicting statutory provisions, rendering the statute ineffective. Consequently, the court treated the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari. The dispute involved allegations of fraud and deceit in the sale of a vehicle, where respondents sought damages under an arbitration clause in the sales contract. The court determined that the arbitration clause was applicable and should have been enforced, as there were no justiciable issues regarding the right to arbitrate. The trial court's order was quashed, and the case was remanded with instructions to enforce the arbitration agreement. The concurring opinion noted jurisdictional concerns, emphasizing the necessity to align appellate procedures with constitutional provisions and advocating for a uniform approach to interlocutory appeals involving arbitration disputes.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arbitration Clause Enforcementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no justiciable issues regarding the right to arbitrate and determined the motion to compel arbitration should have been granted.
Reasoning: Upon reviewing the motion, determined there were no justiciable issues regarding the right to arbitrate and should have granted the motion.
Common Law Certiorari in Arbitration Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court treated the appeal as a petition for common law certiorari since it could not proceed as an interlocutory appeal.
Reasoning: Therefore, the court opts to treat the appeal as a petition for common law certiorari, aligning with precedents from other district courts.
Fraud in the Inducement and Arbitrationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A fraudulently induced contract is voidable, not void, permitting arbitration of claims for damages.
Reasoning: Precedent established that a fraudulently induced contract is voidable, not void, allowing the injured party to seek damages without nullifying the contract, thereby permitting arbitration of the damage claim.
Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review the trial court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
Reasoning: The primary issue is whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
Supremacy of Florida Supreme Court Procedural Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Florida Supreme Court's procedural rules supersede conflicting statutes, rendering Section 682.20(1)(a) inoperative for establishing appellate rights.
Reasoning: The court notes that current Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure supersede conflicting statutes and rules, rendering the cited statute inoperative regarding appellate rights.