Case Name: PAINE, WEBBER, JACKSON & CURTIS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. Louis LUCAS and Bonna Duncan, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-04-07
Citations: 411 So. 2d 1369
Docket Number: No. 81-1073
Parties: PAINE, WEBBER, JACKSON & CURTIS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. Louis LUCAS and Bonna Duncan, Respondents.
Judges: COBB, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 411
Pages: 1369–1372

Head Matter:
PAINE, WEBBER, JACKSON & CURTIS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. Louis LUCAS and Bonna Duncan, Respondents.
No. 81-1073.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
April 7, 1982.
William D. Palmer of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P. A., Orlando, for petitioner.
Douglas Bowdoin of van den Berg, Gay & Burke, P. A., Orlando, for respondents.

Opinion:
ORFINGER, Judge.
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review a non-final order of the trial court denying petitioner's motion to compel arbitration. For the reasons stated we deny the writ.
Respondents have two accounts with the petitioner brokerage firm; one is a Cash Fund Account; the other a Client Commodity Account. The Client Commodity Account agreement provides for arbitration of "any controversy arising out of or relating to my account, to transactions with you for me or to this agreement or the breach thereof...." Respondents sued the petitioner on facts arising exclusively from the opening and handling of the Cash Fund Account. Petitioner, citing the arbitration provision of the Client Commodity Account agreement, moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, and petitioner seeks review by certiorari.
Addressing first the procedural aspect of this case, this court has previously held, at least inferentially, that a petition for common law certiorari is an appropriate method of review of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. See R. W. Roberts Construction Co., Inc. v. Masters & Co., Inc., 403 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Each of the other district courts of appeal have done the same. In Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Bloom, 386 So.2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the court held that where the right to arbitrate is not in dispute, permitting the parties to litigate the dispute in the courts instead of proceeding by arbitration as agreed would constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law. In Lapidus v. Arlen Beach Condominium Association, Inc., 394 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the same district court concluded that the denial of a right of arbitration, where it existed, could not be adequately remedied by appeal since the purpose of arbitration was to avoid litigation.
The avoidance of the expense and difficulty of an unnecessary court trial has been held to be an insufficient reason to justify the use of common law certiorari as a method of review of an otherwise non-ap-pealable, non-final order. Vanco Construction, Inc. v. Nucor Corporation, 378 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). But, this general principle presupposes the existence of otherwise proper litigation. If the purpose of arbitration is to avoid litigation, permitting the parties to litigate at all where there is a right to arbitration completely frustrates that right. Lapidus. Where the right to arbitration exists, compelling a party whose application has been denied to wait until a final judgment is entered so that he can appeal the order denying arbitration, may be a remedy in name, but it is not an adequate remedy in fact. Thus, we agree with the other district courts that an order denying the right to arbitration where such right exists is a departure from the essential requirements of law which cannot be adequately remedied by appeal. Certiorari is thus the appropriate remedy to review such order.
The contracts in question are clearly subject to the interpretation that the arbitration clause relied on by petitioner applies only to the Client Commodity Account and not to the Cash Fund Account, so no right of arbitration exists here. Although the trial court did not state the reasons for denial of the motion, its order can be sustained if it is correct for any reason. Zinger v. Gattis, 382 So.2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Concluding that the order in question did not depart from the essential requirements of law, the petition for certiorari is denied.
Writ DENIED.
COBB, J., concurs.
COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. See also: Balboa Insurance Company v. W. G. Mills, Inc., 403 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Marthame Sanders & Company v. 400 West Madison Corporation, 401 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Miller Construction Company, Inc. v. The First Baptist Church of Live Oak, Inc., 396 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).