02-0065 SOLER V. SECONDARY

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2002 » 02-0065 SOLER V. SECONDARY

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 02-0065 SOLER V. SECONDARY

Case Date: 12/18/2002

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2002

JOSE I. SOLER, Appellant, vs. SECONDARY HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Appellees.

** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D02-65 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 97-3841

Opinion filed December 18, 2002. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Amy N. Dean, Judge. Rodriguez, Tramont, Guerra & Nunez and Jorge L. Guerra and Paulino A. Nunez, Jr. and Angelina S. Kaye, for appellant. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson and Oscar A. Sanchez and Jorge A. Lopez, for appellees.

Before COPE, LEVY, and FLETCHER, JJ.

LEVY, Judge.

Jose I. Soler (hereinafter "Appellant") appeals from a trial

court Order confirming an Arbitrator's award, alleging that the Arbitrator exceeded the scope of his jurisdiction which was limited to a determination of whether a joint venture existed between the parties. We agree with the appellant and reverse accordingly. The facts of the parties' relationship and dealings are more fully developed in Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So. 2d 62 (Fla 3d DCA 2000). The following facts are pertinent to the matter currently before the Court: Appellant brought suit

against Appellees, Secondary Holdings, Inc., Shores Development, Inc., Wayne Rosen, and Michael Latterner, (hereinafter referred collectively as "Appellees"), for fraud, breach of contract, rescission, securities violations and unjust enrichment arising out of several real estate deals. The gist of Appellant's claims is that he was squeezed out of a joint venture created by the parties to pursue several real estate developments.1 Appellees responded with a Motion to Stay sixteen of the seventeen Counts in the Complaint. The trial

This appeal only concerns the Doral Landings deal, which is referred to as the "Spanish Lakes Litigation" in the parties' Arbitration Agreement. See also Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) wherein this Court affirmed Summary Judgment on the Spanish Lakes deal on the basis that appellant signed a release of settlement with appellees. This Court specifically found that the release did not extend to the Doral Landings deal. -2-

1

court denied the Motion and this Court granted appellees' writ, "remanding with instructions that the actions at law be abated until a determination is made that a partnership was formed, and until the action for an accounting has been completed." Laurence v. Soler, 706 So. 2d 896, 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Thus, the

only Count not stayed was Count 15 of the Complaint, wherein appellant sought an accounting of the venture's finances.

Subsequently, in the summer of 1998, the parties agreed to submit respect "all to remaining the claims differences and between in or the parties to with the

defenses

related

litigations[,]" to arbitration.2 Moreover, in the Arbitration Agreement, the parties acknowledged this Court's opinion in Laurence v. Soler, 706 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) and agreed that the ruling shall be given "full force and effect" in the arbitration. During the course of arbitration, a dispute regarding the Spanish Lakes matter surfaced before this Court. See Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). On appeal, this Court found that the issues regarding Spanish Lakes had been disposed of by the Settlement Agreement. However, the

The Arbitration Agreement governed several matters pending between the parties including the "Spanish Lakes Litigation," part of which is the subject of this appeal. -3-

2

Court reversed with respect to the Doral Landings issue on the basis that the Agreement and Release did not cover the Doral Landings matter, of and the that the Court previously mandated Soler a v.

determination

parties'

relationship.

See

Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So. 2d at 70 (citing Laurence v. Soler, 706 So. 2d at 897 ("[O]ur holding in Soler I mandated that this cause be abated and remanded for a determination as to whether a partnership/joint venture had ever been formed.")). Consequently, the Doral Landings matter was remanded for

arbitration. See Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So. 2d at 70. The Arbitrator found that a joint venture as to the Doral Landings project existed between the parties. However, the

Arbitrator's Award went further and determined that the venture was terminated by the 1995 Settlement Agreement, and, as a result, awarded appellant $50,000, the balance of appellant's contribution to the project which was not returned to him. The trial court denied award. appellant's Appellant Motions to Vacate that the the

Arbitrator's

appeals,

arguing

Arbitrator exceeded the scope of his jurisdiction. We agree. Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth the only grounds upon which an award of an Arbitrator must be vacated. See Verzura Const., Inc. v. Surfside Ocean, Inc., 708 So. 2d 994

-4-

(Fla. 3d DCA 1998). An Arbitrator's award must be vacated when, among other things, the Arbitrator exceeds his or her powers. See

Download 02-0065 SOLER V. SECONDARY.pdf