Court Opinion

ID: 9384893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 15:03:15.262448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.531517
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed April 5, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1306
                       Lower Tribunal No. 21-12260
                          ________________

                  F.R. Aleman & Associates, Inc.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         EAC Consulting, Inc.,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne Del
Rio, Judge.

      Leto Law Firm and Matthew P. Leto and Charles P. Gourlis, for
appellant.

      Lydecker LLP and D. Spencer Mallard and Meliz Martin and Tiran Alon,
for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Appellant F.R. Aleman & Associates, Inc. (“Aleman”) challenges that

portion of the trial court’s July 22, 2022 order (i) confirming an arbitration

panel’s award of attorney’s fees to appellee EAC Consulting, Inc., and (ii)

denying Aleman’s motion to vacate that portion of the arbitration award.1

Specifically, Aleman asserts (as it did below) that, while the parties agreed

to have the arbitration panel resolve their underlying contractual dispute,

they did not authorize the arbitration panel to determine entitlement to, and

amount of, attorney’s fees. § 682.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2021) (“An arbitrator may

award reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable expenses of

arbitration if such an award is authorized . . . by the agreement of the parties

to the arbitration proceeding.”); § 682.13(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2021) (“Upon

motion of a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate an

arbitration award if . . . [a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.”).

1
  Aleman also appeals the trial court’s award of pre-judgment interest. We
affirm that aspect of the challenged July 22, 2022 order without discussion.
Because Aleman failed to move below to have the trial court correct an
alleged miscalculation of the figures contained in the arbitration award, we
decline to address this issue in the first instance. See § 682.14(1)(a), Fla.
Stat. (2021) (“Upon motion made within 90 days after the movant receives
notice of the award pursuant to s. 682.09 or within 90 days after the movant
receives notice of a modified or corrected award pursuant to s. 682.10, the
court shall modify or correct the award if . . . [t]here is an evident
miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any
person, thing, or property referred to in the award.”).

                                        2
      “In reviewing the trial court’s order, we review findings of fact for

competent substantial evidence and questions of law de novo.” Marr v.

Webb, 930 So. 2d 734, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Because the record

contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s

determination that the parties expressly agreed to have the arbitration panel

adjudicate the attorney’s fees issue, we affirm the trial court’s confirmation

of the arbitration panel’s fees award. § 682.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2021).

      Affirmed.

                                      3