Alterman v. Martin-Busutil

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alterman v. Martin-Busutil

716 So. 2d 849, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11104, 1998 WL 552798

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 2, 1998

DocketNo. 98-0207

StatusPublished

This text of 716 So. 2d 849 (Alterman v. Martin-Busutil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alterman v. Martin-Busutil, 716 So. 2d 849, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11104, 1998 WL 552798 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award. This case is controlled by the legal proposition that an arbitration award

cannot be set aside for mere errors of judgment either as to the law or as to the facts; if the award is within the scope of the submission, and the arbitrators are not [850]*850guilty of the acts of misconduct set forth in the statute, the award operates as a final and conclusive judgment.

Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla.1989) (quoting Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla.1951)). See also § 682.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The case upon which appellant primarily relies, Reider v. P-48, Inc., 362 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), is inapplicable, since Reider did not involve an order confirming an arbitration award, but was a direct appeal from a trial court’s ruling in a breach of contract case. The errors claimed by appellant all relate to errors in the arbitrator’s factual findings, conclusions, or interpretation of the contract, not to those factors enumerated in section 682.13(l)(a)-(e), which would justify a trial court in vacating an arbitrator’s decision.

AFFIRMED.

STONE, C.J., and WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award. This case is controlled by the legal proposition that an arbitration award

cannot be set aside for mere errors of judgment either as to the law or as to the facts; if the award is within the scope of the submission, and the arbitrators are not [850]*850guilty of the acts of misconduct set forth in the statute, the award operates as a final and conclusive judgment.

Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla.1989) (quoting Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla.1951)). See also § 682.13(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The case upon which appellant primarily relies, Reider v. P-48, Inc., 362 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), is inapplicable, since Reider did not involve an order confirming an arbitration award, but was a direct appeal from a trial court’s ruling in a breach of contract case. The errors claimed by appellant all relate to errors in the arbitrator’s factual findings, conclusions, or interpretation of the contract, not to those factors enumerated in section 682.13(l)(a)-(e), which would justify a trial court in vacating an arbitrator’s decision.

AFFIRMED.

STONE, C.J., and WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

716 So. 2d 849, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11104, 1998 WL 552798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alterman-v-martin-busutil-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack