14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 656a
Arbitration — Award — Enforcement — Where parties informed trial court that they had settled dispute after service of arbitrator’s decision but failed to file proposed judgment or settlement agreement or request trial de novo within twenty days after service of decision, court is required to enter judgment in accordance with decision
HALLELUJAH CHIROPRACTIC, a/k/a ARTHUR H.W. REID, D.C., P.A., (a/a/o Easton Miller), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 06-9492 COCE (53). May 7, 2007. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Sisy Mukerjee, Weston, for Plaintiff. Paula Ferris, Coral Gables, for Defendant.
FINAL JUDGMENT ON ARBITRATOR’S DECISION IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration of the notice of filing Arbitration Award filed by the Arbitrator Michael G. Ahearn, and the Court’s having reviewed the docket, the entire Court file, and the relevant legal authorities; and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
This case was submitted to mandatory arbitration. The arbitrator served his decision by U.S. mail on April 6, 2007. Under Rule 1.820(h), Fla. R. Crim. P., a motion for trial de novo must be “made” within 20 days of the “service” of the arbitrator’s decision. Under Florida law, “a party has the right to move for a trial within twenty days after service of the arbitrator’s decision. If no motion for trial is timely served, then the trial court must enforce the decision of the arbitrator and has no discretion to do otherwise” (emphasis added). Bacon Family Partners, L.P. v. Apollo Condominium Ass’n, 852 So.2d 882, 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). See also Johnson v. Levine, 736 So.2d 1235, 1238 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc., 600 So.2d 511, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The Arbitration Decision reflects that the arbitrator appropriately considered the parties’ arguments, as well as their submitted affidavits and live testimony. Rule 1.820(c).
The Defendant has notified the Court by letter that the parties have settled the disputed benefits part of the case. However, no party has submitted a proposed judgment or written settlement agreement to the Court, nor has either requested a hearing to this end. The requirements of the mandatory arbitration rules are strict. As a result, the Court finds that the parties are now bound by the parameters of the arbitration decision because neither timely filed a request for trial de novo. The Court lacks discretion to deny entry of a judgment in accordance with the arbitrator’s decision when the parties fail to timely request a trial de novo or otherwise fail to dispose of the case of record within the de novo deadline.
Including the five-day mailing period, the Defendant’s request for trial de novo was required to be filed no later than May 1, 2007. The Defendant did not do so. As a result, the Court is required to enter judgment in accordance with the Arbitrator’s decision. See Gossett & Gossett, P.A. v. Fleming, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 839 (Broward Cty. Ct. 2003). Accordingly, the Court has this day unsealed the Arbitrator’s decision, and it is hereby
ADJUDGED THAT:
The Plaintiff shall recover from the Defendant, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, the sum of $6,888.00, which such sum shall hereafter bear interest at the rate of 11% per annum, for which sums let execution issue. The Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs, and the Court reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees and costs.
