Case Name: The SUNRISE CLUB, INC., a Florida corporation; Sundale Ltd., a Florida limited partnership; Associated American Development CORP., a Florida corporation,; Philip Scutieri, Jr., individually and as Trustee; an Sunrise Management Co., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. SHAPO, FREEMAN & BLOOM, P.A., a Florida professional association, f/k/a Shapo, Freedman & Fletcher, P.A.; Ronald A. Shapo; and David A. Freedman, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-08-08
Citations: 790 So. 2d 1231
Docket Number: No. 3D01-261
Parties: The SUNRISE CLUB, INC., a Florida corporation; Sundale Ltd., a Florida limited partnership; Associated American Development CORP., a Florida corporation,; Philip Scutieri, Jr., individually and as Trustee; an Sunrise Management Co., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. SHAPO, FREEMAN & BLOOM, P.A., a Florida professional association, f/k/a Shapo, Freedman & Fletcher, P.A.; Ronald A. Shapo; and David A. Freedman, Appellees.
Judges: Before GERSTEN, RAMIREZ and NESBITT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 790
Pages: 1231–1231

Head Matter:
The SUNRISE CLUB, INC., a Florida corporation; Sundale Ltd., a Florida limited partnership; Associated American Development CORP., a Florida corporation,; Philip Scutieri, Jr., individually and as Trustee; an Sunrise Management Co., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. SHAPO, FREEMAN & BLOOM, P.A., a Florida professional association, f/k/a Shapo, Freedman & Fletcher, P.A.; Ronald A. Shapo; and David A. Freedman, Appellees.
No. 3D01-261.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 8, 2001.
Kipnis Tescher Lippman & Valinsky, and Howard A. Tescher (Fort Lauder-dale), for appellants.
Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky, Macaulay & Zorrilla, and Isaac J. Mitrani, and Pamela A. Chamberlin, Miami, for appellees.
Before GERSTEN, RAMIREZ and NESBITT, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
We grant the appellees' motion for clarification, withdraw the opinion filed June 20, 2001, and substitute the following:
Appellants appeal a non-final order granting the appellees' motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. We find the trial judge erred in making factual determinations which were unsupported by the record, without conducting an eviden-tiary hearing. See Jalis Construction, Inc. v. Mintz, 724 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial judge to hold an .expedited evidentiary hearing to determine whether any of the appellants are parties to the arbitration agreement and, if so, whether the appellants and the appellees intended to arbitrate the issues which are the subject of the instant action. See Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla.1999); Loyola Development Limited Company v. M.J. Anderson, Construction Corp., 711 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998);
Reversed and remanded.