Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...fore any cause of action accrues—and no statute requiring a parent to obtain court approval before agreeing to arbitrate a claim once it has been filed. Thus, with the exception of disputes involving child custody, visitation, or child support, See § 44.104(14), Fla....

...ae to prohibit arbitration of those claims. Instead, the Legislature has specifically authorized enforcement of agreements to arbitrate pending civil disputes while specifically exempting only disputes involving custody, support, and visitation. See § 44.104(14), Fla....

...Contending that the policy terms were ambiguous and must be construed in its favor, West Florida sued to recover $83,712 that it claimed to be due under the policy. Following procedural maneuvering not relevant here, the parties submitted the matter to voluntary trial resolution in Hillsborough County pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...Co., 842 So.2d 947, 949 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 846 So.2d 1148 (Fla.2003); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Marvin Dev. Co., 805 So.2d 888, 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The facts determined in the voluntary trial resolution proceeding are not subject to appeal. See § 44.104(11)....

...However, under our statutes and rules of civil procedure, if an arbitration occurs after a claimant files a lawsuit under section 44.103, Florida Statutes (1993) ("Court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration") (implemented by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820), or section 44.104, Florida Statutes (1993) ("Voluntary binding arbitration") (implemented by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.830), the claimant will be required to pay 60% of a punitive damage award to the general revenue fund of the State of Florida pursuant to the provisions of section 768.73(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...or vindicating a civil right or of redressing some civil wrong." Moreover, they constitute methods of dispute resolution that the legislature has recognized and that the judicial branch has strongly advocated and implemented. See, e.g., §§ 44.103, 44.104, Fla....

...in arbitration, just as it would in court. If the plaintiff does not prevail in arbitration and believes that her costs and fees were so high as to prevent her from exercising her statutory rights, she may appeal the ruling to the circuit court. See § 44.104(10), Fla....

..., Florida Statutes, arbitration is a process whereby a neutral third person or panel considers the facts and arguments presented by the parties and renders a decision which may be binding or non-binding." Fla. R. Arb. 11.030(b) (emphasis added); see § 44.104(8), Fla....

...f the issues in this case on December 5th and 6th, 2006 before Judge John Gale, Retired. (Emphasis added). The question before us is whether the language of the Agreement, wherein the parties opted to arbitrate all "issues" between them, contravenes section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2006), which specifically forbids arbitration of disputes involving child custody, visitation, or child support. Section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2006), provides, in pertinent part: (1) Two or more opposing parties who are involved in a civil dispute may agree in writing to submit the controversy to voluntary binding arbitration, or voluntary trial resolution,...

...n lieu of litigation of the issues involved, prior to or after a lawsuit has been filed, provided no constitutional issue is involved. . . . . (14) This section shall not apply to any dispute involving child custody, visitation, or child support.... Section 44.104(1), (14), Florida Statutes (2006) (emphasis added)....

..."[T]he intent of the legislature must guide our analysis, and that intent must be determined primarily from the language of the statute." Hale v. State, 891 So.2d 517, 521 (Fla.2004) (citing Miele v. Prudential-Bache Sec. Inc., 656 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla.1995)). *6 The plain language of section 44.104(14) prohibits binding arbitration of child custody, visitation, or child support matters, as was done in this particular case....

...Accordingly, there is no question that the portion of the Award that pertains to child custody, visitation, or child support must be vacated and reversed. Next, we consider whether the remaining portions of the Award, such as the alimony award, may be upheld. This determination depends on the meaning of "dispute" within section 44.104....

..., and child support is excluded from arbitration in its totality or whether arbitration is precluded only as to the individual issues of child custody, visitation, or child support. We begin by acknowledging that the term "dispute," as it appears in section 44.104, is ambiguous and susceptible to different interpretations....

...Accordingly, we must look beyond the plain meaning of the statute. See Weber v. Dobbins, 616 So.2d 956, 958 (Fla. 1993); see also Bautista v. State, 863 So.2d 1180, 1185-86 (Fla.2003). Moreover, we are not aware of any case law interpreting the application of the term "dispute" in section 44.104....

...This language further demonstrates that the legislature envisioned different meanings for "dispute" and "issues," where "issues" describe the finer points of contention between parties that ultimately comprise the totality of the "dispute." Based on the foregoing, we hold that the term "dispute" in section 44.104(1) and (14), Florida Statutes (2006), was intended by the legislature to reference the complete action between the parties, as opposed to the "issues involved" in the dispute. Thus, by specifying that section 44.104 "shall not apply to any dispute involving child custody, visitation, or child support," the legislature intended to exclude from arbitration all lawsuits that involve issues of child custody, visitation, or child support. See section 44.104(14), Florida Statues (2006) (emphasis added)....

...modified to delete the delegation of judicial authority...." Id. Similarly, the situation presented for our review involves an agreed order submitting the entire case to binding arbitration. The issue of delegating judicial authority in violation of section 44.104(14) of the Florida Statutes was not raised during trial. However, as in Nashid, we find that it was plain error for the trial court to delegate its judicial authority to an arbitrator to decide matters relating to child custody, visitation, or child support as mandated in section 44.104(14), Florida Statutes. Because this case involved issues of child custody, visitation, and child support, and was therefore proscribed from arbitration by section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2006), we reverse the trial court's order approving the Award, vacate the entire Award, and remand for further proceedings....

...arently mindful of the statutory limitations to our vacating this arbitration award under the Florida Arbitration Code, the former husband argues for the first time on appeal that the award is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to section 44.104(14), of the Florida Mediation Statute....

...ers involving child custody, visitation, or child support may not be nevertheless arbitrated under Chapter 682. As we pointed out in Schulberg v. Schulberg, 883 So.2d 352, 356 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), "[w]hile this language would preclude the use of section 44.104 for such a dispute, it leaves open the question whether an arbitration clause excluded from 44.104 might nonetheless be enforceable under chapter 682, Florida Statutes." In this case, the former husband is making the argument that section 44.104(14) is jurisdictional. As such, he argues that a violation of this statute may be raised outside of the ninety-day time constraint of section 682.12(2). Assuming, without deciding, that section 44.104(14) is a jurisdictional statute, the former husband is nevertheless incorrect as a matter of law....

...I have located no authority, statutory or otherwise, for an appellate court to reverse and vacate an arbitration award under such circumstances and the majority opinion certainly offers no such authority. [7] Given our limited standard of judicial review on challenges to arbitration awards, I therefore conclude that if section 44.104(14) is to serve as an additional basis for an appellate court to vacate an arbitration award, either within or outside of the ninety-day time constraints of section 682.13(2), it must be done by legislative enactment rather than judicial fiat, as my brothers in the majority have done. [8] Accordingly, I believe that we are compelled to affirm the trial court's confirmation of this arbitration award. NOTES [1] Sections 44.302 and 44.304, Florida Statutes, were later renumbered as sections 44.102 and 44.104, Florida Statutes, respectively. [2] Subsection (12) of section 44.304, Florida Statutes, was later renumbered as subsection (14) of section 44.104, Florida Statutes, and the language therein was expanded....

...icial authority. Thus, the Nashid court was not faced with the limited appellate review of an actual arbitrator's award as we are in this case. [8] Indeed, in Schulberg, we pointed out that although some arbitration agreements may be subject to both section 44.104 and Chapter 682, there may be contrasting provisions in these statutes, which need clarification by the Florida Legislature....

...La Gorce's complaint was later amended, and alleged 1) fraud in the inducement *1037 against ITT, 2) aiding and abetting fraud in the inducement by Witt and GMWA, 3) violation of FDUTPA by ITT and GMWA, 4) professional malpractice by Witt and GMWA, and 5) breach of the GMWA Agreements by GMWA. Pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2006), the parties agreed to try the case before a trial resolution judge....

...liability provision applied only to GMWA, and the conclusion that La Gorce failed to prove fraud in the inducement and violation of FDUTPA by ITT. I. Standard of Review The trial resolution judge's findings of fact are not reviewable on appeal. See section 44.104(11), Florida Statutes (2008) ("Factual findings determined in the voluntary trial are not subject to appeal.")....

...evidence supports the conclusion that although [ITT] designed a system which did not perform as promised, they [sic] do not rise to the level of unfair or deceptive practices against a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances." Pursuant to section 44.104(11), Florida Statutes, we are bound by the factual findings of the trial resolution judge....

...This agreement was not ambiguous, and Sonnel was a party to it. Chapter 44, Florida Statutes (2004), authorizes a court to order nonbinding arbitration, § 44.103, and to order voluntary binding arbitration when opposing parties so agree in writing, § 44.104....

...ration award within 90 days after delivery of copy of award); § 44.103(5) (directing judge to enter orders or judgments necessary to carry out arbitration decision when no timely motion for trial de novo has been made after nonbinding arbitration); § 44.104(10) (providing limited grounds for party to raise in challenging decision rendered in voluntary binding arbitration); § 44.104(13) (directing judge to enter orders or judgments necessary to carry out arbitration decision when no timely appeal has been taken); Fla....

...KLINGENSMITH, J., concurring specially. I concur in the majority’s opinion in this case, but write separately to address an important issue raised in this appeal. The parties in this case stipulated to voluntary binding arbitration pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes....

...Baxley, II, Gainesville, for Appellant. Michael J. Korn of Korn, Zehmer & Gellatly, P.A., and Ross T. Clark of Law Offices of Bateh & Clark, Jacksonville, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Marcel E. Marty appeals both an order of the circuit court by which his section 44.104(10), Florida Statutes, appeal of an arbitration award was dismissed and the consequent section 44.104(11), Florida Statutes, orders of the circuit court by which the arbitration award was confirmed and money damages in the amount set by the arbitrator were awarded....

...encing with 2003." On this appeal, the former wife argues in substance that the enforcement order is fundamental error. She states that it has come to her attention that there is a statutory prohibition on arbitration of child support. She points to section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2003), which addresses voluntary binding arbitration. Subsection 44.104(14) provides, "This section [44.104] shall not apply to any dispute involving child custody, visitation, or child support...." The former wife reasons that tuition is a form of child support. See Montante v. Montante, 627 So.2d 554, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). She argues that under subsection 44.104(14), the parties' arbitration clause is unenforceable. We conclude that there is no fundamental error here. We reject the former wife's analysis. Although not addressed by the parties, we have considerable doubt that section 44.104, Florida Statutes, applies to the parties' arbitration clause. Subsection 44.104(1) states, "Two or more opposing parties who are involved in a civil dispute may agree in writing to submit the controversy to voluntary binding arbitration ......

...te. The parties' arbitration clause, by contrast, was entered into in 1996 to govern possible future disputes about private schooling which might arise in 1998 or thereafter. It appears that the parties' arbitration clause is outside of the scope of section 44.104. [3] Assuming for purposes of discussion that section 44.104 applies to the parties' arbitration clause, the question is whether the parties' arbitration clause is one which applies "to any dispute involving ......

...If the arbitrator's answer is yes, then the former husband will owe 60% of the tuition cost, as the parties have already decided between themselves how to allocate the cost. If the former husband fails to pay, enforcement is for the court. Assuming arguendo that section 44.104 is applicable here, the parties' arbitration agreement is consistent with, and not prohibited by, subsection 44.104(14)....

...may include in a written contract a provision for the settlement by arbitration of any controversy thereafter arising between them relating to such contract or the failure or refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof.") (Emphasis added). [4] We suggest that the Legislature revisit section 44.104, Florida Statutes, from two standpoints. First, as presently written, subsection 44.104(14) indicates, "This section [44.104] shall not apply to any dispute involving child custody, visitation, or child support...." While this language would preclude the use of section 44.104 for such a dispute, it leaves open the question whether an arbitration clause excluded from 44.104 might nonetheless be enforceable under chapter 682, Florida Statutes. Second, while section 44.104 and chapter 682 are similar, there are some differences. It appears that some arbitration agreements may be subject to both statutes. Compare § 44.104(1), Florida Statutes, with id....

...ay agree in writing to submit the controversy to voluntary binding arbitration, or voluntary trial resolution, in lieu of litigation of the issues involved, prior to or after a lawsuit has been filed, provided no constitutional issue is involved.” § 44.104(1), Fla....

...evidence.” Underwater Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. Utility Bd. of City of Key West, 194 So. 3d 437, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (additional citations omitted). This case, however, is atypical in one important respect: It was tried before a voluntary trial resolution judge, pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes. As such, the parties are bound by the provisions of that law, including section 44.104(11), which provides: (11) Any party may enforce a final decision rendered in a voluntary trial by filing a petition for final judgment in the circuit court in the circuit in which the voluntary trial took place....

...to the appropriate appellate court. Factual findings determined in the voluntary trial are not subject to appeal. (Emphasis added). See also Witt v. La Gorce Country Club, Inc., 35 So. 3d 1033, 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that, pursuant to section 44.104(11), an appellate court is “bound by the factual findings of the trial resolution judge”). As such, the trial court’s factual determinations—that the parties agreed Former Wife would no longer be responsible for the m...

...knowledge of the Crystal Bay Investment at the time Former Husband made the investment. We hold the trial court committed no error of law, and Former Husband is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact, which “are not subject to appeal by the parties.” § 44.104(11), Fla....

...did not intend to gift this property to Former Husband as a marital asset. Once again, this court is bound by, and Former Husband is statutorily precluded from appealing, the factual findings made by the trial court. Witt, 35 So. 3d at 1040 (holding that, pursuant to section 44.104(11), an appellate court is “bound by the factual findings of the trial resolution judge”)....

...3d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); American Ideal Mgmt., Inc. v. Dale Village, Inc., 567 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Holman v. Halford, 518 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). We conclude that the trial court committed no error of law and that, pursuant to section 44.104(11), Former Wife is precluded from appealing the trial court’s factual findings underlying this claim....

...Disputes thereafter arose between the parties regarding financial issues only. The parties initiated the arbitration process and a five-day arbitration was scheduled in order to address financial issues. Before the arbitration could commence, this court issued its opinion in Toiberman. That case interpreted section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2006), as excluding from arbitration "all lawsuits that involve issues of child custody, visitation, or child support." 998 So.2d at 7....

...ent proceedings and because the only dispute involves financial issues. The trial court agreed with the wife and ruled that the arbitration clause was not enforceable. The husband has appealed. The Toiberman decision held that: the term "dispute" in section 44.104(1) and (14), Florida Statutes (2006), was intended by the legislature to reference the complete action between the parties, as opposed to the "issues involved" in the dispute. Thus, by specifying that section 44.104 "shall not apply to any dispute involving child custody, visitation, or child support," the legislature intended to exclude from arbitration all lawsuits that involve issues of child custody, visitation, or child support....

Kuntz, J. Elaine Kaplan appeals the court’s judgment affirming an arbitrator’s decision following voluntary binding arbitration conducted pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2015)....

...� (a) allegations the arbitrator failed to comply with the rules of procedure or evidence; (b) alleged partiality of the arbitrator; or (c) allegations that the arbitrator’s decision reaches a result contrary to the federal or state constitutions. § 44.104(10), Fla. Stat. (2015). Beyond the permitted review in the circuit court, the statute clearly provides that “[n]o further review shall be permitted unless a constitutional issue is raised.” See id. § 44.104(12)....

...The plain text of the statute is clear and when legislation is clear “our task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entm’t Group, 493 U.S. 120, 126 , 110 S.Ct. 456 , 107 L.Ed.2d 438 (1989). Pursuant to section 44.104, when parties agree to submit to voluntary binding arbitration, their appeal is to the circuit court, and no further review is permitted unless a constitutional issue is raised....

...r jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed. May and Klingensmith, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.830, titled “Voluntary Binding Arbitration,” generally mirrors the statute. We note, however, that subsection (c)(3) references section *933 44.104(11), Florida Statutes. Due to the amendments to the statute in 1999, and the creation of new subdivisions at that time, Rule 1.830(c)(3) should refer to section 44.104(13)....

...IT IS THEREFORE THE RULING OF THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THIS BINDING ARBITRATION DECISION BE IN FAVOR OF OSTER AND AGAINST DEEN. Deen filed a complaint in circuit court challenging the arbitrator's decision. He alleged that the arbitration proceedings were governed by section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2000), which required compliance with the Florida Evidence Code....

...Nevertheless, the allegations do not show partiality of the arbitrator in the award itself. As such, the trial court did not err in concluding that the allegations of the complaint were legally insufficient to warrant vacation of the award. Appellant also challenges the statutory scheme dealing with arbitration. Section 44.104 which allows for arbitration requires the application of Florida Evidence Code, while arbitration pursuant to chapter 682 does not....

...Eugene Lindsey, III, for appellant. Ferencik Libanoff Brandt Bustamante & Goldstein, P.A., Robert E. Ferencik, Jr. and Nestor Bustamante (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Affirmed. See § 44.104(11), Fla....

Hearing Procedures. Subject to these rules and section 44.104, Florida Statutes, the parties may, by written

...Before EMAS, LOGUE, and BOKOR, JJ.  LOGUE, J. Petitioners, who include the plaintiff and defendants below, seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to proceed with the appointment of a trial resolution judge pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes, (2020). We grant the petition. The case is currently set for trial in September 2021. On April 22, 2021, the petitioners filed a Joint Application for Voluntary Trial Resolution pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes....

...al date, the court had expended substantial judicial resources managing the case, and the case would be more expeditiously resolved if tried by the court rather than by a private trial resolution judge. The order concludes “i[f] the purpose of section 44.104 is to provide alternatives for the expeditious resolution of disputes, such purpose is defeated by a request that will have the effect of further delaying this case.” 2  “To be ent...

...1st DCA 2012) (internal citation omitted)). In construing a statute, “the intent of the legislature must guide our analysis, and that intent must be determined primarily from the language of the statute.” Hale v. State, 891 So. 2d 517, 521 (Fla. 2004) (citation omitted). Section 44.104, titled “Mediation Alternatives to Judicial Action,” provides, in pertinent part: (1) Two or more opposing parties who are involved in a civil dispute may agree in writing to submit the controversy to ....

...compliance.”) (footnotes omitted); Greenbriar Condo. Ass’n v. Padgett, 583 So. 2d 1100, 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“The use of the word ‘shall’ seems to indicate no discretion on the part of the trial court . . . .”). 1 Under the plain language of section 44.104(4), the trial court’s views about the best and most expeditious method to resolve the dispute must yield 1 Cf....

...to the parties’ legislatively given right to jointly agree to submit their case to a private judge. We grant the petition and direct the trial court to enter an order appointing Bruce G. Alexander, Esq., as trial resolution judge pursuant to section 44.104(4), Florida Statutes, without any restriction other than those contained in the statute....

...s liability limitations. As set forth in the defendants' clarification, their offer was subject to the provisions of chapter 766, which includes the statutory damages limitations. It follows that the trial court erred in compelling arbitration under section 44.104, Florida Statutes, and in ruling that section 766.207, Florida Statutes is inapplicable....

...Friedland, individually and in his capacity as the trustee, petition this court to prohibit the trial court from acting outside its authority in a matter referred to a trial resolution judge (commonly known as a private judge) for resolution of various matters pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes....

...order determining entitlement to fees does not specifically reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees does not divest the private judge of jurisdiction to make such a determination, just as it wouldn’t divest a trial judge of that authority. See id.; see also § 44.104(1), (5), (8), (11), Fla. Stat. (establishing that, as related to the issues raised here, the private judge has the same authority as a trial judge); Pardes v. Pardes, 335 So. 3d 1241, 1243 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citing section 44.104(1) and referring throughout the opinion to the private judge as “the trial court”). The former wife seeks only to prevent the trial court from its expressed intent to exercise powers properly delegated to the private judge by agreement of the parties and authorized by statute....

...judgment also ordered Lee County to “structurally maintain the buildings and plans for such structural maintenance shall be completed within thirty (30) days and construction shall commence within sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment.” Section 44.104(11), Florida Statutes (1995), authorizes the trial judge to enter such orders and judgments as are required to carry out the terms of the arbitrators’ decision....

...es can voluntarily stipulate to binding arbitration. See § 44.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) ("A court, pursuant to rules adopted by the Supreme Court, may refer any contested civil action filed in a circuit or county court to nonbinding arbitration."); § 44.104(1), Fla....

...es can voluntarily stipulate to binding arbitration. See § 44.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) ("A court, pursuant to rules adopted by the Supreme Court, may refer any contested civil action filed in a circuit or county court to nonbinding arbitration."); § 44.104(1), Fla....

of fact are not reviewable on appeal." (citing § 44.104(11), Fla. Stat. (2008) ("Factual findings determined

of fact are not reviewable on appeal." (citing § 44.104(11), Fla. Stat. (2008) ("Factual findings determined

...(3) If no appeal is filed within the time period set out in subdivision (2) of this rule, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge who shall enter such orders and judgments as required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided under section 44.104(11), Florida Statutes. - 13 - FORM 1.902....

...circuit court’s final judgment confirming a voluntary binding arbitration award in the association’s favor. Because the former board member’s appeal does not raise a constitutional issue, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2016): (10) An appeal of a voluntary binding arbitration decision shall be taken to the circuit court and shall be limited to review on the record and not de novo, of: (a) Any alleged failur...

....  (c) Whether the decision reaches a result contrary to the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Florida. .... (12) . . . No further review shall be permitted unless a constitutional issue is raised. § 44.104(10), (12), Fla. Stat. (2016) (emphasis added). See also Kaplan v. Epstein, 219 So. 3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Pursuant to section 44.104, when parties agree to submit to voluntary binding arbitration, their appeal is to the circuit court, and no further review is permitted unless a constitutional issue is raised.”). Dismissed. MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur....

...Randy and Rose Merritt appeal the trial court’s amended final judgment approving the order of a voluntary trial resolution judge granting OLMHP, LLC’s motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict. 1 The voluntary trial resolution judge presided over a jury trial pursuant to section 44.104(1), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides as follows: (1) Two or more opposing parties who are involved in a civil dispute may agree in writing to submit the controversy to *561 voluntary binding arbitration, or voluntary trial resolution, in lieu of litigation of the issues involved, prior to or after a lawsuit has been filed, provided no constitutional issue is involved. Particularly pertinent to our analysis is section 44.104(11): (11) Any party may enforce a final decision rendered in a voluntary trial by filing a petition for final judgment in the circuit court in which the voluntary trial took place....

...on, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. *562 The voluntary trial resolution judge entered a comprehensive order on OLMHP’s motion. The trial court thereafter entered an amended final judgment pursuant to section 44.104(11)....

...Accordingly, we agree with OLMHP that the voluntary trial resolution judge correctly applied the law to the facts before him. Although our decision favors OLMHP on the merits, we do not agree with its suggestion that we may not review the underlying factual findings at trial. See § 44.104(11)....

...Moreover, OLMHP’s brush sweeps too broadly and would eviscerate our de novo standard of review in cases involving a directed verdict. We are aware of no supreme court standard or rule of appellate procedure that so limits our review standard. We previously allowed an appeal from a section 44.104 order in an insurance coverage case....

...That case, which involved a bench trial before a voluntary trial resolution judge, recognized that “Hollowing procedural maneuvering not relevant here, the parties submitted the matter to voluntary trial resolution in Hillsborough County pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2001).” Id. We did not suggest that section 44.104(11) trumps the standard appellate review requirements at issue here. But cf. Witt v. La Gorce Country Club, Inc., 35 So.Sd 1033, 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA *563 2010) (stating that pursuant to section 44.104(11) the trial resolution judge’s findings of fact are not reviewable on appeal, but questions of law, including those pertaining to contract interpretation, are reviewed de novo)....

...BJ Jarvis, Melaleuca An Invasive Tree of Florida, http://pasco.ifas.ufl.edu/gardening/ melaleuca.shtml (last visited Mar. 14, 2013). . We do not address whether the facts of this case, which sound in traditional causes of action for negligence or trespass, can state a cause of action for civil theft. . Section 44.104(1) is silent as to the level of deference the trial court owes to an order of a voluntary trial resolution judge....