Callejas v. Keyes Co.
This text of 485 So. 2d 6 (Callejas v. Keyes Co.) 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.
Opinion
The appellant, Callejas, is a real estate salesman formerly employed by the Keyes Co., a registered broker. He sued Keyes to recover the salesman’s share of a commission it had collected. Keyes responded with a motion to compel arbitration of the claim on the basis of the following provision of an agreement Callejas signed at the commencement of his employment:
All intra-company disputes, including those with subsidiaries and affiliates of the company, regarding listings, commissions, or company policies and procedures are resolved by company arbitration, if the sale associates and managers involved in the transaction are unable to resolve the matter directly between themselves. The final decision on all in-tra-company disputes rests with the company, and all associates must abide by the company’s decision.1
In the order now under review pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v), the trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration.
It is clear on the face of it that the arbitration clause invoked by the defendant does not apply to this case. It concerns only “intra-company” controversies between employees or subsidiaries of Keyes; the instant action is one between a former employee and Keyes itself — a dispute which quite obviously could not appropriately be “arbitrated,” as provided by the agreement, by one of the litigants in question. Thus, the order requiring arbitration (by the defendant of an action against it) must be reversed. See Pacemaker Corp. v. Euster, 357 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Lucas, 411 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Dehors the pertinent pleadings below, Keyes has indicated to us that, in fact, it is a mere stakeholder of the claimed portion of the commission which it admits it owes either to Callejas or to another salesperson. Accordingly, we expressly provide that our present disposition is without prejudice to any appropriate consistent proceedings in which the merits and consequences of this position may be determined.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
485 So. 2d 6, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 469, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callejas-v-keyes-co-fladistctapp-1986.