FI-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil
118 So. 3d 859
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellants seek to compel arbitration after a nursing-home admission involving Vrastil; proffered arbitration agreement was signed but not dated or named Vrastil/Evergreen Woods.
- Gill, Vrastil’s daughter and attorney-in-fact, sued Appellants for negligence, wrongful death, fiduciary breach, and statutory violations after Vrastil’s death.
- Appellee opposed arbitration with unauthenticated documents (fee schedules, statements) and a 2003 AAA note; trial court denied arbitration, finding public-policy-voiding effects.
- Statutory framework required an evidentiary hearing if substantial issues exist as to the making of the agreement; the court did not hold such a hearing.
- Court of appeal reverses, holds the record requires an evidentiary hearing and remands for proceedings; finds no automatic voiding of the arbitration agreement under public policy based solely on the AAA/JAMS framework.
- Court notes that severability and Florida law burden standards limit the impact of the arbitration provisions, and that Green Tree costs alone do not render arbitration unenforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of arbitration without an evidentiary hearing was error | Appellants contend a hearing is required under §682.03(1) | Appellee argues no substantial issue exists | Remanded for evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the proffered arbitration agreement is void as against public policy | Arbitration under AAA/JAMS undoes statutorily provided remedies | Public policy not violated; severability possible; specific provisions may be lawful | Public policy not established; remand for further proceedings on validity |
| Whether cost and discovery provisions render arbitration unenforceable | Costs/fees prevent effective vindication of statutory rights | Costs alone insufficient to invalidate arbitration; evidentiary record needed | Not dispositive on record; remand for fuller review |
| Whether the agreement’s use of JAMS rules affects enforceability given public policy | Rules may conflict with Florida remedies; public policy concerns | Rule 4 allows governing law to prevail; not automatically void | Not dispositive; issue must be addressed on remand |
| Whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate at all | Proffered agreement is defective (dated/not naming parties) | Agreement could still bind if properly entered | Remand to determine existence/formation of agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So.3d 456 (Fla.2011) (arbitration/public-policy analysis for nursing facilities; severability concerns)
- Crystal Motor Car Co. of Hernando, LLC v. Bailey, 24 So.3d 789 (Fla.5th DCA 2009) (need for evidentiary hearing when existence of agreement disputed)
- Tandem Health Care of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Whitney, 897 So.2d 531 (Fla.2d DCA 2005) (reversal for failure to hold hearing when agreement disputed)
- Franks v. Bowers, 116 So.3d 1240 (Fla.2013) (statutory remedies limitations; contract analysis with remedies comparison)
- Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (costs can render arbitration ineffective only if demonstrated likelihood of preventing vindication)
- Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (delegation and arbitration agreements background)