From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 10, 1992
600 So. 2d 511 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Summary

holding if no motion for trial de novo is made within the twenty-day period under the rule, "the trial court is required to enforce the award and lacks discretion to do otherwise"

Summary of this case from Quaregna v. Strategic

Opinion

No. 91-2076.

June 10, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Edward Fine, J.

Adam G. Heffner, Schneider, Pearlstine Heffner, Boca Raton, for appellant.

W. Jay Hunston, Jr., of DeSantis, Cook Hunston, Jupiter, for appellees.


As was correctly held below, under the clear and mandatory provisions of section 44.303(4), Florida Statutes (1987), and rule 1.820(h), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, upon the failure to move for a trial de novo within 20 days of the service of an arbitration award rendered pursuant to section 44.303, Florida Statutes (1987), the trial court is required to enforce the award and lacks discretion to do otherwise. Wiesen v. Schatzberg, 157 Fla. 375, 26 So.2d 62 (1946); State ex rel. Negron v. Court of Record In and For Broward County, 286 So.2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). It does not matter that the award itself was untimely rendered beyond the period provided by rule 1.820(g)(3), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, because, in contrast to section 44.303(4) and rule 1.820(h), this clause is merely directory. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Hyman, 417 So.2d 671 (Fla. 1982), on remand, 431 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 415 So.2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); and cases cited. No other error is presented.

An arbitration decision shall be final if a request for a trial de novo is not filed within the time provided by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. . . . If no request for trial de novo is made within the time provided, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge in the case who shall enter such orders and judgments as are required to carry out the terms of the decision. . . . § 44.303(4), Fla. Stat. (1987).

If a motion for a trial de novo is not made within 20 days of service on the parties of the decision, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge who shall enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.303(4), Florida Statutes (1987). Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.820(h).

Within ten days of the final adjournment of the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator(s) shall, in writing, notify the parties of their decision on a form approved by the Supreme Court. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.820(g)(3).

Under the circumstances presented, relief under rule 1.540(b) was not available to the appellant. See Herrick v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY and POLEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 10, 1992
600 So. 2d 511 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

holding if no motion for trial de novo is made within the twenty-day period under the rule, "the trial court is required to enforce the award and lacks discretion to do otherwise"

Summary of this case from Quaregna v. Strategic

In Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc., 600 So.2d 511, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), we held that "upon the failure to move for a trial de novo within 20 days of the service of an arbitration award... the trial court is required to enforce the award and lacks discretion to do otherwise."

Summary of this case from Nicholson-Kenny Capital v. Steinberg

In Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc., 600 So.2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the court held that the untimeliness of the rendition of the award had no effect on the non-discretionary duty of the trial court to enforce the arbitration award on the failure to move for trial de novo within 20 days.

Summary of this case from Gallardo v. Scott

In Klein, the plaintiff had apparently sought to avoid entry of judgment after failing to request a trial de novo based on the fact that the arbitrator's order had not been rendered within ten days of the adjournment of the arbitration hearing.

Summary of this case from Gallardo v. Scott
Case details for

Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SUZANNE KLEIN, APPELLANT, v. J.L. HOWARD, INC. D/B/A J/HOWARD DESIGN AND…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jun 10, 1992

Citations

600 So. 2d 511 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Gallardo v. Scott

The Gallardos counter that given that almost none of the statutory or rule requirements for the commencement…

Quaregna v. Strategic

Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.820(h). When Healthgrades did not move for a trial de novo within the twenty-day period, the…