Bloch v. DiLorenzo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bloch v. DiLorenzo

44 So. 3d 1290, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15548, 2010 WL 3984691

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 13, 2010·No. 4D09-3803·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award and dismissing appellant’s “counterclaim.” Appellant’s contract with appellee included a provision requiring arbitration of any disputes. The parties arbitrated, and the arbitrators entered their findings and award. The “counterclaim,” opposing the award and arbitration proceeding, was filed six months after the entry of the award. Not only was this pleading untimely, see § 682.13(2), Florida Statutes, but it also failed to raise grounds upon which the award could be vacated. See § 682.13(1), Fla. Stat.

WARNER, POLEN and LEVINE, 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 and dismissing appellant’s “counterclaim.” Appellant’s contract with appellee included a provision requiring arbitration of any disputes. The parties arbitrated, and the arbitrators entered their findings and award. The “counterclaim,” opposing the award and arbitration proceeding, was filed six months after the entry of the award. Not only was this pleading untimely, see § 682.13(2), Florida Statutes, but it also failed to raise grounds upon which the award could be vacated. See § 682.13(1), Fla. Stat.

WARNER, POLEN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Bloch v. DiLorenzo, 44 So. 3d 1290, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15548, 2010 WL 3984691 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

44 So. 3d 1290 (Bloch v. DiLorenzo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related