Berk v. Berk

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Berk v. Berk

126 So. 3d 349, 2013 WL 1629243, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6018

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 2013

DocketNo. 3D12-3216

StatusPublished

This text of 126 So. 3d 349 (Berk v. Berk) 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

Berk v. Berk, 126 So. 3d 349, 2013 WL 1629243, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6018 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEPHERD, J.

Barry Berk and Peggy Berk appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss and [350]*350to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion on the ground there exist five other cases, brought by Honey Berk against her brother and sister, Barry and Peggy Berk, in the same probate division as the case before us, all of which the court found were “inextricably intertwined.” The case before us is indisputably based upon an Operating Agreement to which Honey is a signatory. The other five cases are not, and there is no evidence of waiver by Barry or Peggy of the concededly valid arbitration clause in the Operating Agreement.

Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to grant Barry and Peggy Berk’s motion to compel arbitration. See Apartment Inv. & Mgmt. Co. v. Flamingo/S. Beach 1 Condo. Ass’n, 84 So.3d 1090 (Fla.2012).

Reversed and remanded.

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

SHEPHERD, J.

Barry Berk and Peggy Berk appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss and [350]*350to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion on the ground there exist five other cases, brought by Honey Berk against her brother and sister, Barry and Peggy Berk, in the same probate division as the case before us, all of which the court found were “inextricably intertwined.” The case before us is indisputably based upon an Operating Agreement to which Honey is a signatory. The other five cases are not, and there is no evidence of waiver by Barry or Peggy of the concededly valid arbitration clause in the Operating Agreement.

Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to grant Barry and Peggy Berk’s motion to compel arbitration. See Apartment Inv. & Mgmt. Co. v. Flamingo/S. Beach 1 Condo. Ass’n, 84 So.3d 1090 (Fla.2012).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 So. 3d 349, 2013 WL 1629243, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berk-v-berk-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack