Davidson v. Foshee Enterprises, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davidson v. Foshee Enterprises, Inc.

467 So. 2d 1118, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1122, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13836

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1985

DocketNo. AT-315

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 467 So. 2d 1118 (Davidson v. Foshee Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Davidson v. Foshee Enterprises, Inc., 467 So. 2d 1118, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1122, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13836 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari to review the non-final order disposing of the petitioners' motions to dismiss the third-party complaint and to strike is granted. Although the petitioners’ motion did not expressly request an order compelling respondent Foshee Enterprises, Inc., to arbitrate the third-party claim as provided in the contract between the parties, the court below apparently treated the motion as including such a request, for the order granted the third-party defendants, Wendell A. Davidson and Mary C. Davidson, “leave to commence arbitration proceedings, provided that a notice of demand for arbitration shall be filed with the defendant and third-party plaintiff, Foshee Enterprises, Inc., and with the American Arbitration Association within thirty (30) days from the entry of this order.” The order departed from the essential requirements of law in placing the burden of initiating the arbitration proceeding on these third-party defendants. Accordingly, we vacate this portion of the order without prejudice to the right of said third-party defendants to file a proper motion to compel Foshee Enterprises, Inc., to arbitrate the subject matter of said third-party claim pursuant to section 682.03, Florida Statutes (1981). In the event a proper motion is filed, the third-party action as to the Davidsons shall be stayed in accordance with the procedure specified in section 682.03 pending final disposition of the arbitration proceeding. Compare Schulman Investment Co. v. Olin Corp., 458 F.Supp. 186 (S.D.N.Y.1978) with Post Tensioned Engineering Corp. v. Fairways Plaza Assoc., 429 So.2d 1212 (Fla.3d DCA 1983), and Miller Construction Co. v. First Baptist Church of Live Oak, 396 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

The order under review is in all other respects AFFIRMED.

JOANOS, THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari to review the non-final order disposing of the petitioners' motions to dismiss the third-party complaint and to strike is granted. Although the petitioners’ motion did not expressly request an order compelling respondent Foshee Enterprises, Inc., to arbitrate the third-party claim as provided in the contract between the parties, the court below apparently treated the motion as including such a request, for the order granted the third-party defendants, Wendell A. Davidson and Mary C. Davidson, “leave to commence arbitration proceedings, provided that a notice of demand for arbitration shall be filed with the defendant and third-party plaintiff, Foshee Enterprises, Inc., and with the American Arbitration Association within thirty (30) days from the entry of this order.” The order departed from the essential requirements of law in placing the burden of initiating the arbitration proceeding on these third-party defendants. Accordingly, we vacate this portion of the order without prejudice to the right of said third-party defendants to file a proper motion to compel Foshee Enterprises, Inc., to arbitrate the subject matter of said third-party claim pursuant to section 682.03, Florida Statutes (1981). In the event a proper motion is filed, the third-party action as to the Davidsons shall be stayed in accordance with the procedure specified in section 682.03 pending final disposition of the arbitration proceeding. Compare Schulman Investment Co. v. Olin Corp., 458 F.Supp. 186 (S.D.N.Y.1978) with Post Tensioned Engineering Corp. v. Fairways Plaza Assoc., 429 So.2d 1212 (Fla.3d DCA 1983), and Miller Construction Co. v. First Baptist Church of Live Oak, 396 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

The order under review is in all other respects AFFIRMED.

JOANOS, THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 So. 2d 1118, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1122, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-foshee-enterprises-inc-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack