Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...pursuant to Accident Claims Arbitration Rules, Section 9 effective March 1, 1976. A conclusion that Mr. Hartnett was not actively involved with the business of Hartnett, Inc. from August 1975 to August 1977 is not possible. The opposite conclusion is dictated by the evidence of this case. 25. The similarity between Fla.Stat. 682.13(1) and 9 U.S.C....

...337 , 21 L.Ed.2d 301 ] (1968); Carol City Utilities v. Gaines Construction, [Gaines Construction Co. v. Carol City Utilities, Inc.] 164 So.2d 270 (Fla. 3d Dist.Ct.App.1964). Both the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10 (b) (1970), and the Florida Arbitration Code, Fla.Stat. § 682.13(1)(b) (1981), authorize a trial court to vacate an arbitration award in cases of “evident partiality” of an arbitrator....

...AFFIRMED. 1 . Although federal law authorizes vacation of an arbitration award on the ground of evident partiality of any of the arbitrators on the panel, Florida law refers only to the neutral third arbitrator. 9 U.S.C. § 10 (b) (1970); Fla.Stat. § 682.13(l)(b) (1981)....

...Attorney General within the three-month period allowed by 9 U.S.C. § 12 barred the suit. The court noted alternatively that the complaint was not timely served under the most analogous Florida limitations period, which is 90 days. See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 682.13(2) (West Supp.1987)....

...However, because the appeal arose from a final judgment entered upon an arbitrator's award, the third district addressed whether it was error for the trial court to consider Noriega's motion. The district court found that none of the statutorily enumerated grounds of section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1985), existed for vacating the award and further found that the arbitrator had not exceeded his powers. Nonetheless, the district court held that both the trial court and the arbitrator had misapplied section 212.031, and therefore reversed as a matter of law. Section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds upon which an award of an arbitrator in a statutory arbitration proceeding may be vacated: (a) the award is procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (b) there is partiality by an arbitrator or...

...f any party; (c) the arbitrator exceeded his powers; (d) the arbitrator refuses to hear evidence material to the controversy or to postpone the hearing when sufficient cause is demonstrated; or (e) there is no agreement or provision for arbitration. § 682.13(1)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. (1985). The statute further provides that "the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award." § 682.13(1)(e)....

...As petitioner notes, the finality and enforceable nature of an arbitration award is a characteristic of arbitration that distinguishes it from other forms of alternative dispute resolution. To allow judicial review of the merits of an arbitration award for any reasons other than those stated in section 682.13(1) would undermine the purpose of settling disputes through arbitration....

...bitration process as a means of alternative dispute resolution. We recognize, as respondent pointed out at oral argument, that after Cassara the legislature revised the Florida Arbitration Code (former chapter 57). In doing so, the legislature added section 682.13(1) (former section 57.22, Florida Statutes (1957)), which lists the grounds upon which an award may be vacated. Section 682.13(1)(c) declares that an arbitration award may be vacated if it is shown that the arbitrator exceeded his or her power....

...Once the parties agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration under the Florida Arbitration Code, they were bound by the decision of the arbitrator. No showing has been made that the arbitrator acted outside his jurisdiction. Absent that showing the award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(1)(c)....

...rom the lessee "in addition" to the rent. §§ 212.03(2), 212.031(3). Notwithstanding that section 212.031 places the obligation to pay the sales tax on the lessee, the award of the arbitrator in this case cannot be vacated. As we have stated, under section 682.13(1) and our case law the standard of judicial review of statutory arbitration awards is extremely limited....

...ble. The trial court declined to find that the panel was biased, as it needed more factual information. The trial court ruled appropriately, as an arbitration award can always be challenged based upon the "evident partiality" of the arbitrators. See § 682.13(1)(b), Fla....

...For example, section 682.09(1), states that "[t]he award shall be in writing and shall be signed by the arbitrators." Section 682.14(1)(c) provides for the modification or correction of an award where "[t]he award is imperfect as a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy." Last, section 682.13 provides a list of criteria upon which an award may be challenged....

...ended. If an arbitrator makes a similar decision, the parties have agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the arbitrator’s “conclusions of law.” The agreement prevents an appeal, and the limited judicial review in circuit court permitted by section 682.13 will not permit a judicial review of such a ruling....

...rules. Moreover, the Agreement specifically provides that any arbitration award must be consistent with Florida law. The Agreement states that the arbitrator's award will be final and binding without any appeal except as provided by Florida law. See § 682.13(1)(a)-(e), Fla....

...peals the district court’s summary judg *1471 ment confirming an arbitration award and awarding attorney’s fees, on the following grounds: there existed evident partiality on the part of the neutral arbitrator within the meaning of Fla.Stat.Ann. § 682.13(l)(b); material questions of fact precluded summary judgment; the district court improperly limited discovery; and the trial court should not have assessed attorney’s fees....

...Maryland Casualty argues the award should not have been confirmed on summary judgment because the neutral arbitrator, Gene Kubicki, breached a duty to disclose certain business dealings which shows “evident partiality” on his part within the meaning of Fla.Stat.Ann. § 682.13(1)(b)....

...Levine, 675 F.2d 1197, 1201-02 (11th Cir.1982). The type of business relationship at issue is a factor to address and where trivial, disclosure is not required. Commonwealth Coating, 393 U.S. at 150 , 89 S.Ct. at 340 (White, J., concurring). Fla.Stat.Ann. § 682.13(l)(b) states: 682.13....

...Vacating an award (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (b) There is evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 682.13(l)(b)....

...Alper was once a partner with Anderson and Post but this relationship terminated some eleven years before the award. The defendant’s claim to set aside the award based upon the facts appearing in this record are so attenuated that it forms no basis for relief under Fla.Stat. § 682.13....

...ships; and that the arbitration award could have been vacated on the grounds of corruption on the part of either Post or Kubicki had these discovery requests been granted. Corruption is a *1473 statutorily available basis for vacation. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 682.13(l)(a), (b)....

...In any event, the terms “corruption, fraud, or other undue means,” refers to activity that “is inherent in, or occurs during, the arbitration proceeding.” American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 189 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1966), cert. denied, 200 So.2d 814 (Fla. 1967) (interpreting predecessor to Section 682.13(l)(a))....

...Arbitration is an alternative to the court system and limited review is necessary to prevent arbitration from becoming merely an added preliminary step to judicial resolution rather than a true alternative. Id. at 614. See also District School Board of St. Johns County v. Timoney, 524 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1987) sets forth the grounds for vacating an award in arbitration: Vacating an award....

...Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56 , 101 S.Ct. 1559 , 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981), we held that the employee’s claim against the employer was governed by Florida’s 90-day statute of limitations for the vacation of an arbitration award. Fla.Stat. Ann. § 682.13(2)....

...The matter was referred to an arbitrator, who made an award to appellees in the amount of $7300.00. The circuit court, upon the application of the appellee to confirm the award pursuant to § 682.12, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., and of the appellant to vacate the award pursuant to § 682.13, Fla....

...The court allowed appellees an attorney's fee of $1000 pursuant to § 627.0127, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. [1] This appeal is from that judgment. Appellant presents two points. The first urges that the court erred in dismissing appellant's amended application to vacate the award. Section 682.13(1), Fla....

...The question thus presented is whether a participant in an arbitration proceeding pursuant to the Florida Arbitration Code may challenge the sufficiency of the proof of the claim by means of an application to vacate an award. The trial judge held that a participant could not do so and we agree. *695 Section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds upon which a regularly rendered arbitration award may be vacated....

...We think this conclusion is but-tressed by the following statement in the very section under which appellant attempts to proceed. "But the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award." Section 682.13, Fla....

...LeNeve responded with a motion to vacate the award. The circuit court consolidated the motions. After an evidentiary hearing, the court confirmed the award and entered judgment against LeNeve. To vacate an arbitration award, a party must establish one of the five statutory grounds set forth in section 682.13(1)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...rdinary case, whereby findings of fact are reviewed under a competent and substantial evidence standard and legal questions are reviewed de novo." See Boyhan v. Maguire, 693 So.2d 659, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). LeNeve sought to vacate the award under section 682.13(1)(c), which provides that a "court shall vacate an award when ....

...shall be decided by arbitration”); and Mcbro, 741 F.2d at 343 (any controversy "arising out of or relating to this [Contract] or the breach thereof” shall be settled by arbitration). 5 . Both Middlesex and Lozano review the application of Fla.Stat. 682.13(1) to the conduct of a neutral arbitrator. Fla.Stat. 682.13 differs from 9 U.S.C....

...s of section 47.051."). The cause of action underlying this appeal from an interlocutory order transferring venue was brought under the provisions of the Florida Arbitration Code. Appellant filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, pursuant to section 682.13(1)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes, which provides: (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: ......

...in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party. (c) The arbitrators or the umpire in the course of his jurisdiction exceeded their powers. If an award is vacated on the basis of any of the grounds enumerated in section 682.13(1)(a-d), "the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators." § 682.13(3), Fla....

...n litigating this cause in Leon County would be prejudicial not only to appellant, but also to the witnesses who testified at the arbitration proceeding. If the trial court were to vacate the award, and order a rehearing before a new arbitrator, see § 682.13(3), it is reasonable to conclude that the same witnesses would be called to testify....

...should be disqualified and shall inform the parties of its decision which shall be conclusive." After holding a separate hearing on the matter, the AAA denied the request to disqualify the Chairman. On appeal, Boyhan seeks to invoke the language of section 682.13(b), [2] which requires the court to vacate an arbitration award when: " there was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any...

...Because Boyhan challenged only the specific portions of transcript indicated in the opinion, however, we limit his challenge to only those cited comments as being preserved. [4] Review of arbitration proceedings is extremely limited. An award may not be set aside by the court except upon the grounds set forth in section 682.13, namely specified, extrinsic acts of misconduct or procedural errors....

...Accordingly, reversal upon the facts of this record would come dangerously close to intruding upon factors inherent in the arbitration decision-making process. AFFIRMED. GUNTHER, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur. NOTES [1] We have set forth the entire colloquy in which the alleged evident partiality occurred. [2] See § 682.13, Fla.Stat....

...Dyco Chemicals & Coatings, Inc., 340 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1977). The fact that the relief granted is such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not a ground for vacating or modifying the award. See § 682.13(1), Fla....

...The arbitrators, as the finders of fact, reconciled the conflicting evidence and awarded the plaintiff $58,000 in compensatory damages. The defendants have failed to demonstrate that the lower court committed reversible error by upholding the arbitrator's award and denying their motion to vacate or modify the award. See §§ 682.13-.14, Fla....

...gures from the face of the award." Appellants' first point on appeal concerns the trial court's confirmation of an amended version of paragraph (b) of the arbitration award. They argue that the arbitrators exceeded their powers, and thus pursuant to section 682.13(1)(c) the trial court should have vacated this portion of the arbitration award....

...Both the trial court and this court are unaware of the discussions and negotiations that were involved in the arbitration process. Further, "the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award." § 682.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1989). An arbitrator exceeds his or her power under section 682.13(1)(c) when he or she goes beyond the authority granted by the parties or the operative documents and decides an issue not pertinent to the resolution of the issue submitted to arbitration....

...ation Code, and remand to the arbitration panel for further proceedings. Petition for writ of certiorari GRANTED, order QUASHED, case REMANDED with directions. DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 682.20, Fla. Stat. (1987). [2] §§ 682.12, 682.13, 682.14, Fla. Stat. (1987). [3] § 682.13(1)(a-e), Fla....

...The court granted the School Board's motion to vacate upon the predicate that the arbitrator had exceeded his power "by disregarding applicable terms of the collective bargaining agreement by substituting his judgment for that of the School Board as to reasonableness of School Board's policies and rules." Section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1975), provides the exclusive grounds for vacating an arbitration award....

...The arbitrator is the sole and final judge of the evidence and the weight to be given to it. Bankers & Shippers Insurance Co. v. Gonzalez, 234 So.2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). The fact that the relief granted is such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not a ground for vacating the award. Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...d at the hearing that there was no just cause for the action taken by School." Even though it might be articulated that he second-guessed the School Board, does this mean that the arbitrator "in the course of his jurisdiction exceeded (his) powers?" Section 682.13(1)(c)....

...The only way to prove or disprove such explanations is to receive corroborative testimony and proof from disinterested parties. It is thereupon, "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: "That the award of the Arbitrator be and the same is hereby set aside and vacated pursuant to F.S. 682.13(e)(3) and a rehearing before the Arbitrator is hereby ordered for the purpose of taking testimony and other proof from the suppliers of goods and services upon which the case is based to determine the extent to which the claims are thus cor...

...ose of determining how the arbitrator arrived at his award. Weeki Wachee Orchid Gardens v. Florida Inland Theatres, 239 So.2d 602 (Fla.2d DCA 1970). The Florida Arbitration Code specifically states when a court may vacate an arbitration award. Thus, Section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1973) provides: "682.13 Vacating an award....

...Appellant, Communications Workers of America, has timely appealed the trial court's order vacating an arbitration award, which interpreted section 447.4095, Florida Statutes, in its favor, on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded his powers under section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes....

...It seems to me that to accept as final the Board's action on October 30 would be to legitimize a resolution not contemplated by law. Following this decision, the School Board moved to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded his power and jurisdiction by ruling on preempted matters. See § 682.13(1)(c), Fla....

...Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328-29 (Fla.1989). Notwithstanding, one basis for vacating an arbitration award is if "[t]he arbitrators or the umpire in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers." Fla. Stat. § 682.13(1)(c)....

...Id. at 1328 ( quoting Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla.1951)). Likewise, "the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award." § 682.13(1)(e), Fla....

...The arbitration award is ambiguous as to whether the arbitrators intended to include the costs in the $92,650 awarded, whether they intended to deny the claim for costs, whether they contemplated that the court would determine the issue, or whether the claim for costs was merely overlooked. Section 682.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes, provides that the court may vacate an arbitration award when the arbitrators "refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of section 682.06, as to prejudice substantially the rights of the party." Section 682.06(2) provides that the parties are entitled "to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing." Section 682.13(2) provides that an application for vacation of the award must be made within 90 days of delivery of the award. Section 682.13(3) provides that in vacating the arbitration award, the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors....

...ation award on the ground that appellee was not allowed to present evidence material to the issue of the costs claim. We therefore remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on this issue, which may include ordering a rehearing under section 682.13(3) before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors, with the instruction that they must hear appellee's evidence on the cost issue and make a determination on its claim for costs....

...stion reserved for the arbitrator. The Candreva rationale fits exactly here. We remand for the entry of judgment on the arbitrator's decision. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. STONE, J., and JAMES C. DOWNEY, Senior Judge, concur. NOTES [1] See § 682.13, Fla....

...[Emphasis added.] In evaluating appellant's argument, it is important to appreciate the extent to which an arbitrator's award is impervious to attack. Such an award may not be vacated upon a mistake of fact or law but only upon one of the statutory grounds. § 682.13, Fla. Stat. (1981); Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Hudnall, 279 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The only ground remotely applicable to this case is whether the arbitrator "in the course of his jurisdiction exceeded [his] powers." § 682.13(1)(c)....

...this route in order to avoid the expense and delay of litigation." Affiliated Mktg., Inc. v. Dyco Chems. & Coatings, Inc., 340 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). A court may not set aside an arbitration award except upon those grounds set forth in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2002). See Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 1989); Boyhan, 693 So.2d at 662. Section 682.13(1)(a) provides that a court "shall vacate" an arbitration award if "[t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud[,] or other undue means." In this case, the Giles brothers were entitled to relief only if the fraud they alleged was sufficient to set aside the arbitration award under section 682.13(1)(a)....

...a hearing on their rule 1.540(b)(3) motion. See World Inv. Corp. v. Breen, 684 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Estate of Willis v. Gaffney, 677 So.2d 949, 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Section 682.13(1)(a) contains language almost identical to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1) (2002). [2] This court may therefore look to federal law to interpret section 682.13(1)(a)....

...the party relying on it must first show that he could not have discovered it during the arbitration, else he should have invoked it as a defense at that time." Karppinen v. Karl Kiefer Mack Co., 187 F.2d 32, 35 (2d Cir.1951). A claim of fraud under section 682.13(1)(a) is not an opportunity to obtain a second bite of the apple to correct a party's deficiencies of proof at an arbitration....

...ather than on the strength of [the employee's] alleged perjurious testimony." Id. at 886. The second failure of the Giles brothers' motion involves the nature of the proof offered to demonstrate fraud. Perjury constitutes fraud within the meaning of section 682.13(1)(a) and 9 U.S.C....

...Rather, the "new" evidence was the type that the arbitrators would have weighed in determining credibility. Failure to consider credibility evidence is not a ground for vacation of an arbitration award. See Liang, 653 F.2d at 313. Because Thompson's affidavit did not clearly and concisely set out a case for fraud under section 682.13(1)(a), an evidentiary hearing was not required on the rule 1.540(b)(3) motion....

...If a motion on its face does not set forth a basis for relief, then an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. The time and expense of needless litigation are avoided and the policy of preserving the finality of judgments is enhanced. (Citations omitted). To set aside an arbitration award, section 682.13(1)(a) requires an even stronger showing of fraud than rule 1.540(b)(3)....

...Although the monetary award in this *958 proceeding is less than what a judge would probably award under section 517.301, Raymond James did not establish that the entitlement to attorneys' fees or the monetary award must be vacated or modified under the limited authority granted to trial courts for that purpose. § 682.13-.14, Fla....

...confirming this award. Surfside counters that a party seeking to challenge any matters before an arbitration panel must do so within ninety days of the award and that any such challenge is limited to the statutory grounds specifically enumerated in section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...to the provisions of s. 682.06, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party. (e) There was no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to law, ... unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection. § 682.13, Fla....

...Indeed, the arbitration code itself specifically provides that the fact that the relief [granted by the panel] was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award. § 682.13(1)(e), Fla....

...June 24, 1997. *1067 Lewis Shelley, Tallahassee, for appellant. David Brooks Kundin, Tallahassee, for appellees. ORDER ON JURISDICTION PER CURIAM. This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the trial court confirming an arbitrator's award pursuant to section 682.13(4), Florida Statutes (1995), without entering judgment thereon....

...rbitration award. Under federal law, a party has ninety (90) days from entry of an arbitrator's decision to move to "vacate, modify, or correct" the order. 9 *1133 U.S.C.A. § 12 (1970). [7] Florida law contains the same time requirements. Fla.Stat. § 682.13(2) (West Supp.1983)....

...Similarly, in Clearwater Development Corp., the losing party in an arbitration proceeding sought to circumvent the adverse ruling by filing a breach of contract action within ninety days of the arbitrator's decision. The court held that the contract *1134 action could not be construed as a motion to vacate under Fla.Stat. § 682.13 because the complaint made no mention of the arbitration award....

...cants for employment." [7] 9 U.S.C.A. § 12, provides in pertinent part: "Notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered." [8] Section 682.13(2) reads: An application under this section shall be made within ninety days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, except that, if predicated upon corruption, fraud, or other undue means, it shall be made within ninety days after such grounds are known or should have been known....

...ntitled. Appellee also argues that under the holding of Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1989), the trial court does not have the authority to overturn an arbitrator's award except upon one of the five grounds set forth in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes....

...Section 682.12, Florida Statutes (2011), provides: Upon application of a party to the arbitration, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in ss. 682.13 and 682.1k....

...5th DCA 1993) (footnotes omitted). Here, the petitioners met all the statutory requirements for confirmation and entry of final judgment. The respondent’s motion to set aside the arbitration award was untimely and failed to meet the statutory criteria. See § 682.13, Fla....

...untimely and confirms arbitration award The Florida Arbitration Code provides in part: "682.10 Change of award by arbitrators or umpire. — On application of a party to the arbitration, or if an application to the court is pending under §§ 682.12, 682.13 or 682.14, on submission to the arbitrators, or to the umpire in the case of an umpire's award, by the court under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators or umpire may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated in § 682.14(1)(a) and (c) or for the purpose of clarifying the award....

...— Upon application of a party to the arbitration, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 682.13 and 682.14....

...ent miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award; * * * * * * (c) The award is imperfect as a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy. * * * * * *" F.S. 682.13, F.S.A....

...n absence of the signatures of the other two arbitrators. Since Lopez filed suit for breach of contract within ninety days of the arbitration award, there remains the question of whether its complaint could be construed as a motion to vacate under F.S. 682.13, F.S.A....

..."This award is in full settlement of all claims submitted to this arbitration." Appellant filed an answer and counterclaim in the circuit court. In its answer, appellant asserted two defenses: (1) appellant alleged that appellee's motion to confirm the award was barred by § 682.13(1)(c), in that by refusing to consider medical bills, loss of earnings, and earning capacity for the past and future, the arbitrators exceeded their powers, and (2) appellant alleged that appellee's motion was barred by § 682.14(1)(a), Fla....

...Stat., F.S.A., in that the arbitrators, by refusing to consider medical bills, loss of earnings, and earning capacity for the past and future, mistakenly described the things referred to in their award. In its counterclaim, appellant sought to have the circuit court vacate or modify the arbitration award pursuant to §§ 682.13 and 682.14, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. In support of its counterclaim, appellant alleged that in refusing to consider appellee's medical bills, loss of earnings, and earning capacity for the past and future, the arbitrators violated § 682.13(1)(c), Fla....

...The Union and the Funds claim that if ABC and ABC of Florida were not satisfied with the decision of the grievance committee, they were required to move to vacate the arbitration award within the ninety (90) day period prescribed by the Florida statute governing arbitration. Section 682.13(2) Florida Statutes (1983)....

Florida Arbitration Act applies prospectively. See § 682.013(3), Fla. Stat. (2013) ("The Revised Florida Arbitration

...It is the parties' intent that the arbitration fully and finally determine all issues which have been, or which could have been, raised in the Litigations. The arbitration award shall be final and binding upon the parties, and may be challenged only upon the grounds specified in Florida Statute § 682.13....

...It is the parties' intent that the arbitration fully and finally determine all issues which have been, or which could have been, raised in the Litigations. The arbitration award shall be final and binding upon the parties, and may be challenged only upon the grounds specified in Florida Statute § 682.13....

...It is the parties' intent that the arbitration fully and finally determine all issues which have been, or which could have been, raised in the Litigations. The arbitration award shall be final and binding upon the parties, and may be challenged only upon the grounds specified in Florida Statute § 682.13....

...Schnieder, Miami, for appellees. Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ. SCHWARTZ, Judge. This is an appeal from a final judgment confirming an arbitration award over the appellant Lee's contention that it had been tainted by fraud or corruption within the meaning of Section 682.13(1)(a), (b), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...1st DCA 1976), [a]rbitrators appointed by disputants to a tripartite panel are expected by the disputants and should be understood by the courts to act as partisans only one step removed from the controversy. The Florida Arbitration Code embodies this view. Section 682.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979) provides that an award shall be vacated when (b) [t]here was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party....

...verse witness." The circuit court entered an order vacating the award, and directing rehearing of the matter before the arbitrators. The grounds upon which the award was vacated, as listed in the order, were the three grounds asserted in the motion. Section 682.13 of Chapter 682 Fla....

...sserted or relied upon in the motion or in the court's order vacating the award. Likewise, none of the three grounds listed in the motion and in the court's order as the basis for setting aside the award in this case were among those provided for by § 682.13....

...stake or errors of fact or law by the arbitrators, upon which the motion to vacate was predicated. In the absence of allegation and establishment of some ground listed in the statute as basis for vacating the award, it was error to vacate the award. Section 682.13(4) Fla....

...Gonzalez, 234 So.2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Frank J. Rooney, Inc. v. Charles W. Ackerman of Florida, Inc., 219 So.2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). This proceeding is governed by the provisions of the Florida Arbitration Code, Chapter 682, Florida Statutes (1981). Section 682.13 provides five grounds on which a trial court may vacate an arbitration award: (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means....

...e objection. But the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award. An arbitration award can be vacated only upon the grounds stated in Section 682.13....

...* * *" Therefore, it is my opinion that the "amendment" to the award was void and no attack upon the same was required by the respondent until some effort was made to enforce the same. The 90 day provision of the statute for filing objections to the award as provided in section 682.13 does not apply to a void award....

...time limitations in which to file an application to modify or correct an award is incorrect. Both the FAA and the FAC provide for a three-month time limit to 22 modify or correct an award. See 9 U.S.C. § 12; §§ 682.13(2), 682.14 (1), Fla....

...The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motions, denied IMC's motion, and entered final judgment in favor of Sabates against IMC. IMC first contends that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the award based on arbitrator misconduct. Section 682.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), requires vacation of an award when there is misconduct by an arbitrator which prejudices the rights of any party....

...lain or refute the knowledge imparted through the telephone communication, it neither challenges the accuracy of this information nor cites any specific evidence it would have presented to counter its validity. Clearly, the requisite prejudice under section 682.13(1)(b) is lacking....

...The trial court, therefore, correctly refused to vacate the arbitration award based on arbitrator misconduct. As its second point, IMC contends that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the award because the arbitrators exceeded their powers. Section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1983), requires an award to be vacated when an arbitrator exceeds his powers in the course of his jurisdiction....

...This limited review is necessary to "avoid a `judicialization' of the arbitration process," and "to prevent arbitration from becoming merely an added preliminary step to judicial resolution rather than a true alternative." Charbonneau, 727 So.2d at 1019 (citing Chandra, M.D. v. Bradstreet, 727 So.2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)). Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2005), enumerates five grounds for vacating an arbitration award, and provides, in relevant part: (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means....

...682.06, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party. (e) There was no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law, unless the matter was determined in proceedings under s. 682.03 and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising an objection. § 682.13, Fla....

...Section 681.1095 provides for binding arbitration, but like Florida's Arbitration Code there is a right to judicial review. See § 682.20, Fla. Stat. (1991). Under the Florida Arbitration Code, the party seeking to vacate the arbitrator's award has the burden of demonstrating why the award should not be confirmed. See § 682.13, Fla....

..."Upon application of a party to the arbitration, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award ...." § 682.12, Fla. Stat. (2001). The insurer never moved to vacate, modify, or clarify the award pursuant to section 682.13, Florida Statutes....

...Board of Regents, 629 So.2d 282, 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) ("Unless the trial court finds that one of the statutorily enumerated grounds apply to vacate an award, neither the trial court, nor a district court of appeal for that matter, has the authority to overturn an award.")(citing section 682.13(1)(a)-(e), Fla....

...Martin of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Miami, for appellant. Kevin J. Fitzsimmons and John N. Cain, Jr. of Mandelbaum & Fitzsimmons, P.A., Tampa, for appellee. GROSS, J. Loewenstein, Inc. seeks review of an order setting aside an arbitration award pursuant to section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...Suarez, 833 So.2d 762 (Fla.2002), holds that appraisal clause was not an agreement to arbitrate, and the formal procedures of the Arbitration Code are inapplicable. Thus, we reject United’s contention that the only way Jossfolk can challenge the arbitration award is through section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes, 2 within the Arbitration Code....

...olicy limits for increased repairs and replacement costs incurred by the insured to comply with the requirements of the applicable laws and ordinances regulating construction or repair of property. See, e.g., § 627.701 l(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). . Section 682.13(1) provides: (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means....

...Whether applying state or federal standards, the judicial review in cases involving the confirmation of an arbitration award is extremely limited. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 10(a), 11; Lifecare Int'l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429 (11th Cir.1995), modified, 85 F.3d 519 (11th Cir.1996); § 682.13, Fla.Stat....

...e of appellant's contribution to the project which was not returned to him. The trial court denied appellant's Motions to Vacate the Arbitrator's award. Appellant appeals, arguing that the Arbitrator exceeded the scope of his jurisdiction. We agree. Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth the only grounds upon which an award of an Arbitrator must be vacated. See Verzura Const., Inc. v. Surfside Ocean, Inc., 708 So.2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). An Arbitrator's award must be vacated when, among other things, the Arbitrator exceeds his or her powers. See § 682.13(1)(c), Fla....

...The Diocese filed this appeal. Absent one of the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award, neither a trial court nor an intermediate appellate court may overturn an arbitration award. See, e.g., Schnurmacher Holding v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1989); § 682.13, Fla....

...He contends that the arbitration panel erroneously admitted a piece of evidence, over objection, which he says was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial to his position. He argues that the award should have been set aside on the theory that "the award was procured by ... undue means." 9 U.S.C. § 10; see also § 682.13(1)(a), Fla....

...ent, Inc. and a Response to Halmac/Intervenor's Motion for Modification under section 682.14, arguing that the Modified Award must be confirmed because Halmac and Castro had no good faith basis to vacate or further modify the award under sections 682.131 and 682.142, Florida Statutes (2012). 1 Section 682.13(1) provides: 4  On January 31, 2012, following a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the Renewed Motion to Confirm as between Wells and Halmac....

...tion lien case the trial court is compelled to find a prevailing party.” Trytek, 3 So. 3d at 1204 n.13. Given Trytek’s clear limitation of Hollub, and the express limitations for modification or vacation of an arbitration award under sections 682.13 and 682.14, Castro’s counsel knew or should have known that Castro did not have any reasonable basis in law to seek an order from the trial court declaring Castro to be the prevailing party contrary to the express determination of the arbitrator....

...meruit as a matter of public policy. The issue before the trial court was whether the status of Mr. Larsen's license as a long-standing licensed general contractor in Florida was such that the arbitration award in favor of Gusi must be vacated under section 682.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997) (providing an award may be vacated if there is no agreement or provision for arbitration)....

...er wife in violation of Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So.2d 383 (Fla. 2004). The former wife counters that the former husband's appeal fails because he did not timely seek to vacate the arbitrator's award on one of the statutorily enumerated grounds in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2007), of the Florida Arbitration Code....

...rt upon the merits of the cause would be to render it merely a step in the settlement of the controversy, instead of a final determination of it. Notwithstanding the high degree of conclusiveness of an arbitrator's award, however, the legislature in section 682.13(1), of the Florida Arbitration Code, has enumerated five grounds upon which an arbitration award may be vacated by timely motion: a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means....

...682.03 and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection. *13 But the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award. § 682.13(1), Fla....

...Moreover, a trial court must confirm an arbitration award upon application of any party to the award unless, within ninety (90) days after receipt of the arbitration award, a party thereto has filed a motion with the court to vacate, modify, or correct the award. See § 682.13(2), Fla....

...This ninety-day limit is subject to one exception: if a motion to vacate the award is based on corruption, fraud, or other undue means, the motion must be filed within ninety days after such grounds are known or should have been known to the injured party. § 682.13(2); Moya, 629 So.2d at 284. If an appropriate motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award is not filed within the applicable time periods, the court has no alternative but to confirm the arbitration award. § 682.13(2); Moya, 629 So.2d at 284....

...Although the former husband did timely file a motion for rehearing in the trial court, wherein he sought to challenge various factual and legal determinations by the arbitrator, this motion cannot properly be treated by us as a motion to vacate pursuant to section 682.13(2) for two reasons....

...Eagle Nat'l Bank of Miami, 449 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Secondly, even if his motion for rehearing had been entertained by the trial court, his factual and legal challenges to the arbitrator's award in the motion for rehearing were nevertheless insufficient to vacate this award under section 682.13(1)....

...by the terms of that agreement."); Burt v. Duval County School Bd., 481 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (where the issue between the parties was arbitrable under their contract but the school board failed to comply with the 90-day provision in Sections 682.13 and 683.14, it could not challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction in the proceeding for confirmation.) It is undisputed in this case that the former husband, upon the advice of counsel, knowingly submitted all of the issues of this dissolution action to arbitration....

...[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....

...ave received the award (i.e. on March 10, 2007) and approximately six months after he instituted this appeal (i.e. on April 25, 2007). [6] Moreover, any potential argument by the former husband that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in violation of section 682.13(1)(c) by adjudicating the child custody, visitation, and support issues would have necessarily failed as well....

...In this case, it is undisputed that the parties submitted all of the issues in this dissolution action, including those involving child custody, visitation, and child support, to arbitration in a written arbitration agreement. It simply cannot be said then that the arbitrator exceeded his powers pursuant to section 682.13(1)(c)....

...he instant case, on the ground that the award is legally incorrect [i.e., that there is no statute or contract between the parties authorizing such an award] because an arbitration award cannot be vacated because the arbitrator made an error of law. § 682.13, Fla....

...ement to attorney's fees. On November 3, 1994, the trial court granted Wood's motion, finding that there was no stipulation between the parties for the arbitrators to determine attorney's fees. On December 5, 1994, a final judgment was entered under section 682.13(c) and 682.14(1)(b) granting Wood $128,193.75 for attorney's fees, $6,250.65 for costs, and interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date of the arbitration award....

...award entered against it that the total award exceeds the company's applicable insurance policy limits if the company has failed to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award on such grounds within ninety (90) days as required by Sections 682.13, 682.14, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...d were the applicable policy limits. They have since changed their position and now contend that the applicable policy limits are $20,000. At no time did Travelers file a motion to vacate, modify or correct the arbitration award pursuant to Sections 682.13, 682.14, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...If an appropriate motion to vacate, modify or correct the award is not filed within the applicable time periods, the court has no alternative but to confirm the arbitration award. Carter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 224 So.2d 802 (Fla.1st DCA 1969); §§ 682.12, 682.13, 682.14, Fla....

...exceeds the applicable policy limits which Travelers now *1289 contends is $20,000. In our view, Travelers has waived that objection by failing to file a timely motion to vacate the award on the basis that the arbitrators exceeded their powers. See: § 682.13(1)(c), Fla....

...ward. Deen v. Oster, 814 So.2d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see Charbonneau v. Morse Operations, Inc., 727 So.2d 1017, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). To vacate an arbitration award, a party must establish one of the five statutory grounds set forth in section 682.13(1)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...wing court may not comb the record of the arbitration hearing for errors of fact or law inherent in the decision-making process). EVIDENT PARTIALITY Both Florida and federal law hold that evident partiality is a basis to vacate an arbitration award. § 682.13(1)(b), Fla....

...cuit case of University Commons-Urbana Ltd. v. Universal Constructors, Inc., 304 F.3d 1331, 1339 (11th Cir.2002), as well as Florida law set forth in Weinger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 620 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). A. Florida Law Section 682.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that a "court shall vacate an award when ..." "`[t]here was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party.'" Deen, 814 So.2d at 1068; see Int'l Ins....

...It is error for a circuit court to enter an order vacating an arbitration award without directing a rehearing. Ripple v. Packard, 471 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The circuit court in this case should have ordered the arbitrators to rehear the matter in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 682.13(3), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...law applicable to interest upon amounts found to be due under a lease because the interest was a part of an award by arbitration. If an error of law was made, it was an error of the arbitrators. It appears to be settled that under the provisions of § 682.13(1)(e), Fla....

...The obtaining of an order confirming the award of the arbitrators was equally perfunctory. Section 682.12 Fla. Stat., F.S.A. directs the entry of such an order, on application of a party, unless statutory grounds for rejecting or vacating the award are present. None such grounds (as set out in § 682.13 Fla....

...[3] Appellee has submitted that he seeks only one full award and admits that in the event the second arbitration results in a finding less than already awarded, then he would be entitled to nothing on his claim from appellant. [4] Ch. 682, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. [5] § 682.13(1), Fla....

...hout raising the objection; "But the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award." (Emphasis supplied.) [6] See emphasized portion of § 682.13(1)(e), Id.; Bankers & Shippers Ins....

...or's authority to a determination and interpretation of the express terms of the agreement, appellant requested vacation of the arbitrator's award arguing to the trial court that the arbitrator in the present case exceeded his powers in violation of section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...As petitioner notes, the finality and enforceable nature of an arbitration award is a characteristic of arbitration that distinguishes it from other forms of alternative dispute resolution. To allow judicial review of the merits of an arbitration award for any reasons other than those stated in section 682.13(1) would undermine the purpose of settling disputes through arbitration....

...lation of "fundamental due process," in the trial court's view, and deprived the arbitrators of jurisdiction to make an award of damages denominated punitive. On this basis, the trial court concluded that the arbitrators had "exceeded their powers." § 682.13(1)(c), Fla....

...orest Land. Haskell appealed that judgment to this court and we reversed, finding that the parties were bound by the arbitration agreement and award and that Forest Land had failed to seek to vacate the award within the 90-day time period set out in § 682.13, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...a binding arbitration award. By so characterizing the resolution in Step 4, it would be consistent with the Mitchell rationale to apply as a bar the Florida ninety-day limitation period for filing actions to vacate arbitration awards. See Fla.Stat. § 682.13....

...]pon review and deliberation, [I am] persuaded that [my] earlier award did, in fact, partially rely on a contract provision not submitted for consideration.” 4 The arbitrator wrote that the original award was “subject to change” pursuant to Section 682.13(1)(d) of the Florida Statutes, which states: “Upon motion of a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate 3 Specifically, the union asked: “If the Union is correct in the understanding of the Award, we are respectfully asking if Mr....

...Nor did he suggest that the parties’ “mutual” request gave him the authority to revise the original award. Rather, he cited a Florida statute that authorizes “the court” to vacate an award if an arbitrator exceeds his power. See Fla. Stat. § 682.13(1)(d) (emphasis added)....

...But this raises a significant question: If not then, when? Rollins ' holding that the arbitrator must address the defense "in the first instance" obviously assumed the existence of some mechanism for eventually placing the issue before the court. But it is not clear to me that existing Florida law provides for such. Section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2008), authorizes a narrow list of grounds for vacating an arbitration award....

...682.06, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party. (e) There was no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law, unless the matter was determined in proceedings under s. 682.03 and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection. § 682.13(1)....

...statutes and Florida's is that the FAA lacks the Florida statute's admonition that "the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award." § 682.13(1)....

...Which of those grounds would include a violation of public policy is unclear. If a liability limitation appears in the arbitration clause, an award that is inconsistent with that limitation arguably would exceed the arbitrator's powers, which provides a statutory basis for vacating the arbitration award. See § 682.13(1)(c)....

...They asked the trial court to confirm the arbitration award. See § 682.01, Fla. Stat. (2008) (providing that sections 682.01-.22 comprise the "Florida Arbitration Code"); § 682.12 (providing for confirmation of an award by court). Dr. Nucci asked the trial court to vacate the award. See § 682.13(1). He argued to the trial court that the Partners waived their right to arbitrate by suing him for injunctive relief. In Dr. Nucci's view, the arbitrator exceeded his power by proceeding despite the Partners' waiver. See § 682.13(1)(c) (providing in pertinent part that a court shall vacate an arbitration award if "[t]he arbitrators or the umpire in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers"). Further, according to Dr. Nucci, the Partners' waiver compelled the conclusion that no valid arbitration agreement remained. See § 682.13(1)(e) (providing that an arbitration award shall be vacated when "[t]here was no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law ... unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection"). *183 Section 682.13(1) provides limited grounds to vacate an arbitration award....

...d no conduct proscribed by the arbitration statute, the award operates as a final and conclusive judgment. Id. at 1328; see also § 682.15. Absent a basis to vacate, the trial court must confirm. Noriega, 542 So.2d at 1328 (citations omitted). Under section 682.13(1)(c), the arbitrator exceeds his power only when he exceeds the authority the parties granted him in their agreement to arbitrate....

...To permit a dissatisfied party to set aside an arbitration award and invoke the judgment of the court on the merits would destroy the purpose of arbitration. Schnurmacher Holding; Applewhite; District School Board of St. Johns County. A trial court may vacate an arbitration award only upon the grounds stated in section 682.13: 682.13 Vacating an award.— (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means....

...Brevard Physicians Group's primary argument on appeal is that Alliance never made any affirmative claims for relief. Therefore, Brevard Physicians Group argues that the arbitrator made an award upon a matter not submitted to him or that he exceeded his powers in making this award. An arbitrator exceeds his or her power under section 682.13(1)(c) when he or she goes beyond the authority granted by the parties or the operative documents, and decides an issue not pertinent to the resolution of the issues submitted to arbitration....

...Numerous Florida District *1362 Court of Appeal decisions have affirmed confirmation of appraisal awards utilizing Florida's Arbitration Code's confirmation process. See, e.g., American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Devecht, 820 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citing Florida Statute § 682.13 while confirming an appraisal award); also Allstate Ins....

...on of the Policy. [11] In other words, when the insurer admits that the loss is covered, the appraisers can determine the cause of damage and the amount of that loss without judicial review of that decision (other than through Florida Statutes §§, 682.13, 682.14)....

...iff Halmac Development, Inc. and Cross Response to Halmac/Inter-venor’s Motion for Modification under Fla. Stat. 682.14, arguing that the Modified Award must be confirmed, because Hal-mac and Castro had no good faith basis to vacate under sections 682.13 and 682.14, Florida Statutes (2012)....

...Moody v. Moody, 705 So.2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). After the arbitrator entered the Remand Order, the trial court gave Castro ninety days to file a motion to correct, modify or vacate the award. Motions to vacate an arbitration award are made pursuant to section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2012), 1 and motions to modify or correct an award are made pursuant to section 682.14, Flori *1237 da Statutes (2012)....

...made clear in Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327 (Fla.1989), that application of an incorrect standard or an error of law is an insufficient basis upon which to vacate an award under the relevant statutes: As we have stated, under section 682.13(1) and our case law the standard of judicial review of statutory arbitration awards is extremely limited....

...the parties must abide by it.” Id. Id. at 1329-30; accord Felger v. Mock, 65 So.3d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Verzura Constr., Inc. v. Surfside Ocean, Inc., 708 So.2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). In the absence of a motion legally sufficient under either section 682.13 or 682.14, the trial court must confirm the award: Upon application of a party to the arbitration, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in ss. 682.13 and 682.14....

...(2012) (emphasis added). 3 See also Polley, 98 So.3d at 648 (stating that the language in section 682.12 is mandatory; granting writ of mandamus to confirm arbitration award where motion to set aside award failed to meet the statutory criteria set forth in section 682.13); accord SEIU Fla....

...5th DCA 1993) (stating that where party failed to assert one of the statutory grounds to vacate an award, trial court cannot refuse to confirm an arbítra *1238 tor’s award, even where award could not be granted in law or equity). Here, Castro did not file a motion to vacate or to modify or correct pursuant to sections 682.13 or 682.14....

...The parties specifically agreed to have the arbitrator determine the issue of “prevailing party.” Upon remand by the trial court, the arbitrator found that neither Castro nor Wells was the prevailing party. In the absence of Castro filing a motion pursuant to section 682.13 or 682.14, the trial court was required to confirm the award, and therefore had no legal basis upon which to enter the October 22 order overturning the Remand Order....

...finding Castro to be the prevailing party, and direct the trial court to confirm the Initial Award as modified by the February 14, 2012 Remand Order. Petition for Writ of Mandamus Granted; Order Quashed; and Cause Remanded. . The relevant portion of section 682.13 states as follows: 682.13....

...Section 682.12 authorizes a court to confirm an arbitration award upon application by a party but does not specify a time limit within which to seek such confirmation. However, when grounds are asserted to vacate, modify, or correct the award, the statute directs *883 that the time limits set forth in sections 682.13 or 682.14 must be followed. [3] The Arons contend that inasmuch as they sought to confirm their award under section 682.12, not to modify, correct, or vacate it under either section 682.13 or section 682.14, and the relevant section is silent as to a time period requirement within which to confirm an award, the general, catch-all four-year statute of limitation period is, therefore, the operable period by which their request must be measured....

...motion to confirm the award, or to clarify it under section 682.10. Section 682.10 provides: 682.10 Change of award by arbitrators or umpire. On application of a party to the arbitration, or if an application to the court is pending under s. 682.12, s. 682.13 or s....

...Upon application of a party to the arbitration, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in ss. 682.13 and 682.14....

...Moser, 745 So.2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), review granted, 761 So.2d 330 (Fla.2000), this calculation of prejudgment interest is clearly error but the issue is mooted by our disposition on the threshold issue of the timeliness of the petition for fees. [3] Section 682.13 provides: Vacating an award....

...“The trial court’s decision to confirm or vacate the arbitration award is reviewed for an abuse of extremely limited discretion.” Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Indian River Cty. Sch. Bd., 888 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Whether an arbitrator exceeded his authority within the meaning of section 682.13, Florida Statutes, is an issue of law subject to de novo review. Visiting Nurse Ass’n of Fla., Inc. v. Jupiter Med. Ctr., Inc., 154 So.3d 1115, 1124 (Fla. 2014). *367 Section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2015), provides for limited grounds upon which an arbitration award may be vacated. One of those grounds is that an arbitrator has exceeded his or her power. § 682.13(l)(d)....

...[2] Section 682.12, Florida Statutes, provides that upon application of a party to arbitration, the court "shall" confirm an award, unless within the time limits herein after imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 682.13 and 682.14. [3] See Fla. Stat. § 682.13 (1991). [4] See Fla. Stat. § 682.14 (1991). [5] Meade v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 423 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1982). [6] § 682.13(1)(a)-(e), Fla....

...Alternatively, a party may apply to the circuit court to vacate an arbitration award when "[t]here was no agreement or provision for arbitration ... unless the matter was determined in proceedings under section 682.03 and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection." Section 682.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...The latter provision should be read in the disjunctive: a party may move to vacate unless the court has already ruled on the issue or the party participated in the arbitration and failed to object. In the case at bar, Mr. Koch seeks to avoid the waiver provision of section 682.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), by contending that he participated in the arbitration proceeding only in his representative capacity as president of Multiple Images, Inc....

...Koch failed to avail himself of the stay provision in section 682.03(4), Florida Statutes (1981). Fourth, Mr. Koch appeared at the arbitration hearing *1044 and failed to object to or otherwise contest personal liability. Thus, he falls squarely within the ambit of section 682.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), and is foreclosed from contesting personal liability because he "participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection." Cf....

...When the arbitrator's words manifest an infidelity to his obligation, Courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424, 1428 (1960). On the authority of section 682.13(1)(c) or 682.14(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), the award should have been vacated, or corrected to conform to the arbitration agreement.

...We also think it noteworthy that Strickland filed a post-hearing motion arguing that it should be deemed the prevailing party and submitted a proposed order to the arbitrator declaring it to be the prevailing party. Moreover, Strickland did not move to vacate the award pursuant to section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), or move to modify or correct the award pursuant to section 682.14, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...It sought to overturn an *773 arbitration award under section 627.062(6), Florida Statutes (1999), which approved rate increases for homeowners' insurance policies that appellees issue. Concluding that the Department failed to allege facts that would justify vacating the arbitration award under section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1999), we affirm....

...41 ("The award shall be made promptly by the arbitrator and, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified by law, no later than thirty days from the date of closing the hearing...."). III. Unhappy with the arbitrators' decision, [1] the Department "appl[ied] to the circuit court to vacate ... the decision pursuant to s. 682.13." § 627.062(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). Specifically, as the sole statutory basis for judicial relief, the Department cited section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), which authorizes the circuit court to vacate an arbitration award when "[t]he arbitrators or the umpire in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers." § 682.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999). The Department does not contend that any other statutory provision sanctioning judicial invalidation of an arbitration award is pertinent here. The Supreme Court of Florida had definitively construed section 682.13(1)(c) to require highly deferential judicial review of arbitration awards, long before the Legislature incorporated the chapter 682 arbitration and judicial review provisions in the insurance rating law, by enacting section 627.062(6), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Duffell, 651 So.2d 1176, 1179 (Fla.1995); Williams v. Jones, 326 So.2d 425, 435 (Fla.1975). From this presumption, of which the Legislature itself is well aware, it follows that the Legislature intended to adopt the deferential standard of review articulated in section 682.13 and explicated in the cases extant at the time section 627.062(6) was enacted. Then, as now, an "arbitration award can be vacated only upon the grounds stated in Section 682.13," Harris v....

...Wofford, 55 So.2d at 105; Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So.2d at 836; Tallahassee Mem'l Regional Med. Ctr., 655 So.2d at 1198; Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 234 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). To reiterate, the relief the Department sought was available, if at all, only under section 682.13. See § 627.062(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999) ("Either party may apply to *777 the circuit court to vacate ... the decision pursuant to s. 682.13....")....

...and thus end the factual controversy. The appellant may not do indirectly what it is forbidden to do directly. By label[]ing a factual controversy an excess of jurisdiction appellant cannot again litigate the merits of the controversy." (construing section 682.13(1)) (citations omitted)). If construed to authorize judicial review of a kind different from the judicial review provided by section 682.13, Florida Administrative Code Rule 4-170.131(6) would not conform to the requirements of section 627.062(6)(b)....

...This provision pertains to the arbitrators' conduct of arbitration, [4] and does not purport to alter the standard of judicial review. A court is authorized to vacate an arbitrators' award where the arbitrators "refused to hear evidence material to the controversy," § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...f the commencement of the final hearing) to going forward, on grounds that more than sixty days had elapsed since arbitration had been demanded. But, as alleged, the arbitrators' decision to proceed with the hearing did not "exceed[ ] their powers." § 682.13(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999). See § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...170.127(2), to the hearing date. To construe Rule 4-170.127(2) as denying arbitrators the ability, for good cause shown, to schedule hearings more than sixty days after the demand for arbitration, would render Rule 4-170.127(2) at odds not only with section 682.13(1)(d), but also with section 627.062(6)(b), which requires that the Department's rules "not be inconsistent with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association as of January 1, 1996." Under the American Arbitration Assoc...

...The fairness of an arbitration hearing may depend on its timing, not least if complex subject matter requires lengthy preparation. V. Because the amended complaint and motion to vacate arbitration award failed to state grounds for vacating the arbitrators' award under section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1999), the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss....

...State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Fla. App. 1973, 278 So.2d 674. Second, Industrial has failed to allege any of the grounds upon which an arbitration award may be vacated and is simply attempting to again litigate the merits of the controversy which it may not do. See § 682.13, Fla....

...nsider new evidence — a second Thyssen affidavit allegedly recanting the contents of the one that Murton presented by at the hearing. AAA affirmed the award in a written response. FF moved the trial court to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2005), and Murton moved to confirm the award pursuant to section 682.12, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...A trial court may only set aside an arbitration award upon the grounds set forth in section 682.12, Florida Statutes (2005). Davenport v. Dimitrijevic, 857 So.2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). An arbitrator's refusal to consider material evidence can be grounds to vacate an award. § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...Following the arbitration proceeding, it was discovered that the tape recorder malfunctioned and the tapes were blank. As a result, a transcript of the arbitration proceeding could not be produced. The appellees filed in the circuit court a motion to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to Section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...The motion to vacate was premised solely on the fact that the arbitration proceedings were not recorded. On November 5, 1992, the circuit court vacated the award. This appeal follows. The appellants contend that the trial court erred in vacating the arbitration award. We agree. Section 682.13(1) sets forth five grounds upon which an arbitration award may be vacated....

...istic of arbitration that distinguishes it from other forms of alternative dispute resolution." In order to preserve the integrity of the arbitration process, a trial court's authority to vacate an arbitration award is limited to the five grounds in Section 682.13....

...In the instant case, the only reason advocated in the appellees' motion to vacate the arbitration award was that the arbitration proceedings were not recorded. The fact that an arbitration proceeding is not recorded is not one of the five grounds enumerated in Section 682.13(1) for vacating an award. Thus, the trial court did not have the authority to vacate the award. The order vacating the arbitration award is reversed, and this cause is remanded for the trial court to enter an order reinstating the arbitration award. NOTES [1] Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in pertinent part as follows: (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means....

...The effect of the final judgment was that the firefighter’s termination was upheld. This appeal followed. 2  II A trial court’s authority to vacate an arbitration decision is limited to the grounds set forth in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes. Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 1989). Paragraph (d) of the statute provides that the decision shall be vacated “if . . . [a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...another arbitrator. .... (3) If an arbitrator discloses a fact required by subsection (1) or subsection (2) to be disclosed and a party timely objects to the appointment or continued service of the arbitrator based upon the fact disclosed, the objection may be a ground under s. 682.13(1)(b) for vacating an award made by the arbitrator. (4) If the arbitrator did not disclose a fact as required by subsection (1) or subsection (2), upon timely objection by a party, the court may vacate an award under s. 682.13(1)(b). § 682.041, Fla....

...Despite the obligations imposed by these provisions, there does not appear to be any case law opining on the extent of the disclosure of relationships between arbitrators that is required under these provisions. However, there are cases interpreting section 682.13 which hold that the partiality of an arbitrator must be “evident” before it can serve as a basis to vacate an arbitration award. See § 682.13(1)(b)1., Fla....

...ted the rights of the complaining party.” Id. at 1145. The relationship between the neutral arbitrator and the plaintiff arbitrator, though rising to a level that required disclosure, does not necessarily create such “evident partiality,” § 682.13(1)(b)1., or a “‘reasonable impression of partiality,’” RDC, 925 So....

...of the Agreement does not support this argument. While the Agreement does provide that the arbitrator's decision will be final and binding, the Agreement does not purport to limit or eliminate Shedden's right to seek vacation of an award pursuant to section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2004), or to appeal an award pursuant to section 682.20....

...tion award in their favor was vacated on grounds that the arbitrator "never had jurisdiction," and "[s]ince the respondent [Board] never submitted any of the issues to arbitration, the ninety-day rule for contesting an arbitrator's award in Sections 682.13 and 682.14, Florida Statutes, is not applicable......

...on, which had been properly initiated in accord with contract, rendered the statute inapplicable. The appellee Board cites no pertinent authority for the court's blanket ruling that the Board "is free to raise ... the defense made available to it in Section 682.13(1)(e)," [1] because the teachers "did submit their claims to arbitration, but the ......

...The matter was treated as a grievance concerning interpretation of the contract until it reached the fourth step involving arbitration. We conclude that the issue was arbitrable under the contract, but the Board, having failed to comply with the 90-day provisions in §§ 682.13 and 682.14, may not, in any event, challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction on that basis in the proceeding for confirmation. The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause is remanded for action consistent with this opinion. ERVIN, J., concurs. ZEHMER, J., dissents. NOTES [1] 682.13 Vacating an award....

...BASKIN, Judge. The Dade County Police Benevolent Association appeals an order vacating an arbitration award on motion of the City of Homestead. We reverse. The court vacated the award based on a finding that the arbitrator exceeded his power pursuant to section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...om rendering meaningful consideration of the motion to vacate the award. The trial court, therefore, should have remanded the matter to the arbitrator for clarification, § 682.10, Fla. Stat. (1993), [1] or vacated the award and ordered a rehearing. § 682.13(3), Fla....

...may modify or correct the award for purposes of clarifying the award... ." 4 Fla. Jur.2d Arbitration and Award § 77 (1994); School Bd. of Seminole County v. McGregor, 383 So.2d 694, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (trial court has authority to refer matter back to arbitrator upon 682.13 motion); Ainsworth v....

...t either as to the law or as to the facts; if the award is within the scope of the submission, and the arbitrators are not guilty of the acts of misconduct set forth in the statute, the award operates as a final and conclusive judgment. In addition, section 682.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), expressly provides that "the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award." Application...

...he issue of prejudgment interest. Thus, we conclude that the award was within the scope of the arbitrators' authority. Finally, the record contains no showing that the arbitrators violated any of the remaining statutory factors set forth in sections 682.13 and .14 thereby justifying vacation or modification of the arbitration award....

...to Show Cause.” However, because the arbitrator deprived the defaulted defendants of a hearing and opportunity to defend against the plaintiffs’ claims for unliquidated damages, the trial court should have vacated the arbitrator’s award under section 682.13(l)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), and directed that the arbitrator hold a hearing on unliquidated damages....

...Following an evi-dentiary hearing, the circuit court entered an order confirming the arbitration award and denying the defendants’ motion to vacate. The defendants appealed. To vacate an arbitration award, a party must establish one of the enumerated statutory grounds under section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes....

...4th DCA 2005). One such statutory ground is where the arbitrator “refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of s. 682.06, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party.” § 682.13(l)(d), Fla....

...ts upon which to base a value judgment”). By failing to hold a hearing on unliqui-dated damages, the arbitrator “refused to hear evidence material to the controversy” and thereby “prejudiced substantially” the rights of the defendants. See § 682.13(l)(d), Fla....

...v. Indian River Cty. Sch. Bd., 888 So. 2d 96, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“[T]he fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.” (quoting Fla. Stat. § 682.13)); Computer Task Grp., 782 So....

...or agreement can be enforced in a court of justice.'" (quoting Local No. 234, etc. v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So.2d 818, 821 (Fla.1953))). VNA attempts to distinguish this case because the parties had gone through arbitration. VNA contends that section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009) provides a list of five circumstances under which a court will vacate an arbitral award. See Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla.1989). The list does not include illegality. VNA argues that the trial court therefore lacked the authority to vacate the award. While it is clear that section 682.13(1) does not include illegality, the issue as to whether a court will enforce an arbitral award on a contract that is allegedly illegal should be treated no differently....

...Linda R. Spaulding of Conrad, Scherer & James, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. WARNER, Judge. This appeal emanates from an order confirming an arbitration award entered in a business dispute. Because the arbitrators exceeded their statutory powers under section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1987), we reverse....

...We thus hold that the arbitrators exceeded their powers when they cancelled the underlying obligation forming the foundation of the entire transaction. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to vacate, modify and correct award. We thus remand this case for further proceedings consistent with section 682.13(3) and 682.14, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...in reducing Molloy's classification. This record is devoid of any proper objection by Molloy regarding the composition of the grievance panel or the procedures it employed, nor did Molloy demonstrate any prejudice which satisfies the requirements of section 682.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1981), which would justify the vacation of the panel decision determining no entitlement to back pay....

...loy's entitlement to back pay, was not framed by the pleadings, tried by consent, or otherwise put into issue by Dr. Molloy and, therefore, it was error for the grievance panel to decide this issue and reduce Molloy's classification as a result. See § 682.13(1)(c), Fla....

...ny disputes. The parties arbitrated, and the arbitrators entered their findings and award. The "counterclaim," opposing the award and arbitration proceeding, was filed six months after the entry of the award. Not only was this pleading untimely, see § 682.13(2), Florida Statutes, but it also failed to raise grounds upon which the award could be vacated. See § 682.13(1), Fla....

...On appeal, the Fourth District began its analysis by noting that illegality of a contract is a compelling reason not to enforce a contract, citing several cases from Florida courts indicating a refusal to enforce illegal contracts. The district court then acknowledged that section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009), clearly does not include illegality of a contract as a basis to vacate an arbitral award....

...Id. On appeal, the Fifth District stated that the issue presented was limited to the standard a trial court should use in reviewing an arbitrator’s ruling on illegality. Id. at 1064. The Fifth District then noted that if a party failed to establish one of the five grounds for vacating an award provided in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2007), “neither a circuit court nor a district court of appeal has the authority to overturn the award.” Id....

...eview on a motion to vacate. Visiting Nurse Association argues before this Court that the Fourth District erred in holding that the trial court must determine whether a contract is legal prior to enforcement of an arbitration award because section 682.13(1) sets forth the - 14 - only grounds on which a court shall vacate an arbitration award. Jupiter Medical Center argues that contract illegality is an exception to the statute,6 and the arbitrators exceeded their powers pursuant to section 682.13(c)....

...to decide the legality of the contract; JMC, however, contends that a court must decide whether a contract is legal prior to enforcement of an arbitral award. Further, JMC contends that the arbitrators exceeded their powers within the meaning of section 682.13(c)....

...2005)). “ ‘Where the statute’s language is clear or unambiguous, courts need not employ principles of statutory construction to determine and effectuate legislative intent.’ ” Trinidad, 121 So. 3d at 439 (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. P.E., 14 So. 3d 228, 234 (Fla. 2009)). Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009), provides: (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. (...

...682.03 and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection. But the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award. § 682.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). The unambiguous language of section 682.13(1) does not include the term “illegality” or require a court to vacate an arbitrator’s “illegal construction of the underlying contract.” Further, the list of circumstances set forth in section 682.13(1) is directed at arbitral misconduct or lack of authority, and not mere errors of law, or errors of construction or interpretation of a contract. Accordingly, although Florida courts are wont to refuse to enforce an illegal contract as noted by the Fourth District, the plain language of the statute constrains the courts’ authority to vacate awards to the five grounds set forth in section 682.13(1). See Jupiter Med. Ctr., 72 So. 3d at 186 (noting case law indicates that Florida courts will not enforce an illegal contract). Indeed, we have previously held that section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds upon which an award of an arbitrator may be vacated. In Schnurmacher, 542 So....

...lessee was obligated to pay sales tax on rental payments. The circuit court confirmed the award and the Third District Court of Appeal reversed. This Court - 37 - held that “in the absence of one of the five factors set forth in [section 682.13], neither a trial court nor a district court of appeal has the authority to overturn the award” despite the arbitrator’s erroneous interpretation of the statutes governing sales tax obligations....

...Hardee Cnty. School Bd., 448 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 456 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1984), and Newport Motel, Inc. v. Cobin Rest., Inc., 281 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)); see also Felger v. Mock, 65 So. 3d 625, 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009), sets forth the only grounds upon which an arbitration award in a statutory arbitration proceeding may be vacated. . . .”); Commercial Interiors, 19 So. 3d at 1064 (“We have specifically held that in order to vacate an arbitration award a party must establish one of the five section 682.13 grounds.”). Accordingly, section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds upon which an arbitration award will be vacated and an arbitration panel’s - 38 - alleged construction of a contract to be an unlawful agreement is not one o...

...As petitioner notes, the finality and enforceable nature of an arbitration award is a characteristic of arbitration that distinguishes it from other forms of alternative dispute resolution. To allow judicial review of the merits of an arbitration award for any reasons other than those stated in section 682.13(1) would undermine the purpose of settling disputes through arbitration....

...h an exception would evince resistance to arbitration and deprive the parties of perhaps arbitration’s ultimate benefit of finality. See id. at 1329. Likewise, we find that the circumstances presented here do not merit relief pursuant to section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), because the arbitrators did not exceed their powers. 2....

...eded their powers because the panel interpreted the purchase agreement in a manner that would violate state and federal laws, regulations, and rules resulting in both civil and criminal penalties. Because the phrase “exceeded their powers” in section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), does not encompass misinterpretations of contractual provisions or other errors of law, but is jurisdictional in nature, we disagree. 14....

...arbitral decision would amount to simple disagreement with an arbitrator’s application of the law to the facts. - 41 -  In Schnurmacher, this Court discussed the meaning of “exceeded their powers” as follows: Section 682.13(1)(c) declares that an arbitration award may be vacated if it is shown that the arbitrator exceeded his or her power. Respondent now urges us to interpret subsection (c) to include that if an arbitrator departs from t...

...The 2009 version of the statute, applicable here, provides that a court shall vacate an award when “[t]he arbitrators or the umpire in the course of her or his - 42 - jurisdiction exceeded their powers.”15 § 682.13(1)(c) (2009)....

...oint venture existed between the parties. Id. at 894. In holding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority because both the arbitration agreement and the trial court’s 15. This section was subsequently amended in 2013. It was changed to section 682.13(1)(d) and provides that a court shall vacate an award when “an arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” It is not clear why the “in the course of her or his jurisdiction” language was stricken from the statute....

...is legal prior to enforcing an arbitral award based on the contract. It is so ordered. PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur. CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., concur in result. 16. If JMC’s argument did apply, such a construction of section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), would lead to parties such as VNA contesting an arbitrator’s determination that a contract is illegal and unenforceable on the very same grounds....

...As such, based on the AAA rules, the panel had jurisdiction to determine the issue. To ask the trial court to revisit this issue would require the trial court to step into an appellate position. The Florida Arbitration Statutes do not provide for such. Pursuant to section 682.13, Florida Statutes, the authority of the trial court to vacate an arbitration award is very narrow....

...� The issue we must now confront is what standard the trial court should use if asked to review the arbitrator’s ruling on illegality.... We have specifically held that in order to vacate an arbitration award a party must establish one of the five section 682.13 grounds, [citations omitted]....

...Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328-29 (Fla.1989) (“[T]he award of arbitrators in statutory arbitration proceedings cannot be set aside for mere errors of judgment either as to the law or as to the facts.... To allow judicial review of the merits of an arbitration award for any reason other than those stated in section 682.13(10) would undermine the purpose of settling disputes through arbitration.”)....

...The main issue for our consideration is whether Judge Jacobus properly vacated Judge Alley's earlier ruling as to Della Penna and confirmed the prior award to Zabawa. The Federal Arbitration Act [3] identifies four grounds upon which to vacate an award. 9 U.S.C.A. § 10(a)(1)-(4). Section 682.13, Florida Statutes, recognizes essentially the same grounds for vacating an award....

...ators "exceeded their powers" by proceeding to arbitration. This is grounds to vacate the award under both the Federal Arbitration Act and Florida law. See 9 U.S.C.A. § 10(a)(4) (award may be vacated "where the arbitrators exceeded their powers" ); § 682.13(1)(c) (court shall vacate an award upon application of a party when "[t]he arbitrators or the umpire in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers.")....

...rly addressed by the arbitrators *161 under Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002), and because the arbitrators did not act outside their jurisdiction, there was no basis for vacating the award under section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes....

...Florida Statutes, § 682.12 (2001), which governs the confirmation of arbitration awards, states that courts "shall confirm an award" upon application of a party to the arbitration, unless an insurer moves to vacate, modify or clarify an award pursuant to § 682.13. Section 682.13 allows the Court to vacate an award upon certain conditions not applicable to the case at bar....

...hin 20 days after the movant receives notice of the award. (3) A party to the arbitration proceeding must give notice of any objection to the motion within 10 days after receipt of the notice. (4) If a motion to the court is pending under s. 682.12, s. 682.13, or s....

...682.14(1)(a) or (c) ; (b) Because the arbitrator has not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitration proceeding; or (c) To clarify the award. (5) An award modified or corrected pursuant to this section is subject to ss. 682.09(1), 682.12, 682.13, and 682.14....

...The Plaintiffs are correct that Florida Statute § 682.12 governs the confirmation of arbitration awards. That provision states that courts "shall confirm an award" upon application of a party to the arbitration, unless an insurer moves to vacate, modify or clarify an award pursuant to § 682.13. Fla. Stat. § 682.12 . Furthermore, under Florida's Arbitration Code, "[i]n the absence of a motion legally sufficient under either §§ 682.13 or 682.14, the trial court must confirm the award." Wells v....

...rticle 7(b) determination. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE As noted previously, defendants contend that this action is time-barred by application of Florida's ninety-day statute of limitations governing actions to vacate arbitration awards. Fla.Stat. § 682.13(2) (1981)....

Stat. (2005). Ms. Anderson moved to vacate. See § 682.13. She asserted that the arbitrator exceeded his

...tration panel. Surgeons requested confirmation of the arbitration award. The trial court granted Ms. Mock’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and ordered that the dispute be submitted to another arbitration panel for a second arbitration. See § 682.13(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when ... [t]he arbitrators ... exceeded their powers.”); § 682.13(3), Fla....

...The trial court ruled that the arbitration panel had “gone beyond the scope of its powers under the arbitration agreement” by modifying the burden of proof so that “it would be almost impossible to recover any damages.” Surgeons has clearly shown that the order is a departure from the essential requirements of law. Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009), sets forth the only grounds upon which an arbitration award in a statutory arbitration proceeding may be vacated: (a) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (b) there was evident...

...ing notice and entitlement to present evidence); or (e) there was no agreement or provision for arbitration. In the absence of one of these five factors, neither the trial court nor this court has the authority to overturn the arbitration award. See § 682.13(1), Fla....

...Mock relies on ground (c), arguing the arbitration panel exceeded its powers under the arbitration agreement by applying an incorrect burden of proof. Application of an incorrect standard, however, has consistently been rejected as a basis for vacating an award under section 682.13(l)(c)....

...Big Bend Police Benevolent Ass’n, 710 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“Assuming, without deciding, that the application of the preponderance of evidence standard was required, the arbitrator’s use of the stricter standard is not a basis for vacating the arbitrator’s decision under section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1995).”). See also Schnurmacher, 542 So.2d at 1329 (rejecting argument that arbitrator exceeds his power under section 682.13(l)(c) if the arbitrator “departs from the accepted rule of law” and holding that, absent a showing that the arbitrator went beyond the authority granted by the parties or the operative documents and decided an issue not pertinent to the resolution of the issue submitted to arbitration, an “award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(l)(c)”); Commercial Interiors Corp....

...At no time prior to the rendition of the arbitrator's award did any party object to Saichek serving as arbitrator. After Dadeland filed its complaint for confirmation of the arbitration award, Gould filed her Objection to Confirmation of the Arbitration Award and Application and Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award pursuant to section 682.13(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...nalysis, that double jeopardy does not apply here, and that the award was against public policy. The circuit court granted the police department's motion, reasoning that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers. The circuit court based its decision on section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes, which provides that "[u]pon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when ....

...On cross appeal, N.C.J. argues that the court erred in confirming the award because the arbitration provision did not bind N.C.J. We conclude that N.C.J. has waived this argument by failing to avail itself of the statutory procedure for making it. Section 682.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires a court to vacate an arbitration award if "[t]here was no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law...." Assuming N.C.J.'s motion to dismiss should be construed to be a motion to vacate the award, it was untimely because section 682.13(2), Florida Statutes, provides that an application to vacate an arbitration award "shall be made within 90 days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant," unless the award is predicated on fraud or corruption....

...ing commenced or about to be commenced, if it shall find that no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law exists between the party making the application and the party causing the arbitration to be had." N.C.J. argues that sections 682.13(1)(e) and 682.03(4) presuppose an arbitration agreement between the parties, but that argument is untenable in light of the language of these provisions, which clearly contemplate a situation in which one party claims there is no arbitration agreement to which it is bound....

...Id. at 534; see also Burt v. Duval County School Bd., 481 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (concluding that the issue between the parties was arbitrable under the contract, but that the school board, having failed to comply with the 90-day provisions in § 682.13 and § 683.14, could not, in any event, challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction in the proceeding for confirmation)....

...Arbitration commenced on September 24, 1990, and at its conclusion, the panel of arbitrators made a substantial award to the appellants. On October 29, 1990, the appellants filed suit in the trial court seeking confirmation of the arbitration award. The appellees responded with a motion to vacate the award pursuant to section 682.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), which in pertinent part provides that an award may be vacated when "[t]he arbitrators or the umpire in the course of his jurisdiction refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown the...

...quest for a second continuance was "unreasonable and a denial of fundamental due process." The trial court then vacated the award. The first question for our determination is whether the AAA's denial of the request for continuance is to be judged by section 682.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), or by section 10(c) of the Federal Arbitration Act....

...682.06(3) not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing; or (f) The arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in s. 682.032 so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding. § 682.13(1)(a)-(f), Fla....

...standard, it still departed from the essential requirements of the law by reweighing the facts of the case and concluding that the arbitrator employed the incorrect legal standard. Neither of these reasons constitute a valid basis for overturning an arbitration award under section 682.13....

...Similarly, an application to vacate must also "be made within 90 days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, except that, if predicated upon corruption, fraud or other undue means, it shall be made within 90 days after such grounds are known or should have been known.” § 682.13(2), Fla....

...Foley, 247 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1971). However, the record shows that Amica admitted liability and submitted only the question of damages for arbitration. Because Amica made no demand for jury trial pursuant to *1372 the contract nor moved to vacate the award pursuant to section 682.13 Florida Statutes (1985), the award of damages to Patricia Roe will be affirmed....

...en years' experience as an attorney. The Agreement additionally states that any arbitration award must be in accordance with Florida law and provides for entry of a binding arbitration award without any appeal, except as provided by Florida law. See § 682.13(1)(a)-(e), Fla....

...be amended. If an arbitrator makes a similar decision, the parties have agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the arbitrator's "conclusions of law." The agreement prevents an appeal, and the limited judicial review in circuit court permitted by section 682.13 will not permit a judicial review of such a ruling....

...Ap-pellee argues that the Board properly determined that § 9-5 evidences the parties’ intent to remove freight rate considerations from the bidding process. Appellee also suggests that the scope of review should be limited to that found in the general arbitration statute. § 682.13, Florida Statutes. If the latter suggestion were correct, we would be inclined to affirm as there is no evidence that the award was procured by fraud, partiality, or other fundamental unfairness described in § 682.13....

...rd and to relitigate issues that could or should have been raised in the arbitration proceedings. The trial court concluded that Mr. Cunningham had not sought to vacate the arbitration award in a timely manner under the Florida Arbitration Code. See § 682.13....

...e award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (b) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party ...." [e.s.] § 682.13(1), Fla....

...vident partiality prejudicing the rights of the party. [2] In other words, the partiality of the neutral must be obvious and plain and must be shown to have unfairly affected the rights of the complaining party. The Fifth District recently construed section 682.13(1)(b) in RDC Golf of Florida I, Inc....

...The arbitrator concluded that Laquer would take nothing in the Duty to Defend cross-claims. Laquer opposed confirmation of the arbitrator’s award, noting her intention to file a motion to vacate the award within the 90-day statutory period, pursuant to section 682.13(2), Florida Statutes (2013). The trial court entered judgment confirming the arbitrator’s award. Laquer moved for rehearing and reconsideration, and to vacate the award. Laquer maintained that the arbitrator lacked subject matter jurisdiction....

...the motion was to be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing if the cross-claimants desired. Our review of an arbitration award “is very limited, with a high degree of conclusiveness attaching” to the award. Marr v. Webb, 930 So. 2d 734, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2013), lists the grounds upon which a court shall vacate an arbitration award upon the application of a party. One of the grounds upon which a court must vacate an arbitration award is when “the arbitrators . . . in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers.” § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...Confirmation of arbitration awards is governed by chapter 682, Florida Statutes. Section 682.12 provides that “the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in ss. 682.13 and 682.14.” (emphasis added). Section 682.13(2) provides that an application to vacate an arbitration award must be made within ninety days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, except in cases predicated upon corruption, fraud, or other undue means. The language of section 682.12 is mandatory— the court must confirm the arbitration award unless a motion to vacate or modify has been filed within ninety days of delivery of the award. And, section 682.13 expressly provides for a motion to vacate “when ... [t]he arbitrators ... in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers.” § 682.13(l)(c)....

...[an arbitration] award, [a] trial court ha[s] no discretion but to confirm the award as rendered.” Broward Cty. Paraprof'l Ass’n v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., 406 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); see also Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 1989) (“Section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds upon which an award of an arbitrator ... may be vacated .... ”). “A motion [to vacate] must be filed within 90 days after the movant receives notice of the award .... ” § 682.13(2), Fla....

...Employee’s petition to vacate was filed on April 13, 2015—over a year later. Due to Employee’s failure to file the petition to vacate within 90 days of the March 15, 2014 dismissal, his petition was untimely filed unless he can establish that “the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means.” § 682.13(2)....

...The statute dealing with the vacation of awards specifically allows an award to be vacated because “[a]n arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon showing of sufficient cause for postponement ... so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party.” § 682.13(l)(c). However, this is a separate ground from that of “corruption, fraud, or other undue means,” and it is therefore subject to the 90-day filing rule of section 682.13(2)....

...15, 2014. Employee therefore argues that the March 15, 2014 dismissal was procured by undue means, which would allow his petition to be filed within 90 days “after the ground is known or by the exercise of reasonable care would have been known.” § 682.13(2)....

...The narrow scope of our review is necessary to ensure that arbitration does not become “merely an added preliminary step to judicial resolution rather than a true alternative.” Id. (citing Charbonneau, 727 So.2d at 1019 ). To vacate an arbitration award, a party must establish one of the five grounds *285 enumerated in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2005). Id. Section 682.13(1) provides, in relevant part: (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means....

...682.06, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party. (e) There was no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law, unless the matter was determined in proceedings under s. 682.03 and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising an objection. § 682.13, Fla....

...The Defendants also argue that because their motion to vacate was based on allegations of fraud, the trial court erroneously denied their motion without an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3). We disagree. The language found in section 682.13(l)(a) is almost identical to the language in 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(1) (2002). 3 Davenport v. Dimitrijevic, 857 So.2d 957, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Thus, it is proper to look to federal law to interpret the language in section 682.13(l)(a)....

...United Parcel Serv., Inc., 335 F.3d 497, 503 (6th Cir.2003); Gingiss Int’l, Inc. v. Bormet, 58 F.3d 328, 333 (7th Cir.1995); Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 835 F.2d 1378, 1383 (11th Cir.1988). A claim of fraud when seeking to vacate an award pursuant to section 682.13(l)(a) is “not an opportunity to obtain a second bite of the apple to correct a party’s deficiencies of proof at an arbitration.” Davenport, 857 So.2d at 962 (citing Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc....

...Liang, 653 F.2d 310, 313 (7th Cir.1981)(stating that 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(1) does not authorize a court to vacate an arbitration award for new evidence)). In this case, the Defendants’ attack on the arbitration award fails to satisfy the requirements to establish fraud under section 682.13(l)(a)....

...a bank account without an apparent business purpose. Clearly, these allegations are an attack on the sufficiency of proof and the weight of the evidence at the arbitration proceeding, rather than allegations constituting fraud within the meaning of section 682.13(l)(a)....

...mmitted errors of fact or law in making the decision. Cassedy v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 751 So.2d 143, 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citations omitted). The Defendants’ motion did not set out a prima facie case for fraud under section 682.13(l)(a) and, therefore, an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3) was not required....

...s. Flemenbaum, 636 So.2d at 580 . Thus, we find that no evidentiary hearing was required on the rule 1.540(b)(3) motion. The Defendants contend that, in the Derivative Case, the, arbitrator exceeded his powers and the scope of his jurisdiction under section 682.13(l)(e) by awarding a portion of the challenged funds to Torre *287 and Cabezas individually, instead of Car-eMed....

...Specifically, the Defendants’ claim that because this was a derivative action, the only issue arbitrated was whether certain payments should be refunded to Car-eMed. However, we find that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, so as to support vacating the award under section 682.13(l)(c)....

...See Timko v. Triarsi, 898 So.2d 89, 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Nevertheless, the fact that, in this case, the arbitrator found that Marcelino made improper payments but awarded Torre and Cabezas relief, does not provide a ground for vacating the award under section 682.13....

...Thus, we find no merit in the Defendants’ claim that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by awarding the individual shareholders relief because the fact that the arbitrator awarded relief that would not ordinarily be granted by a court of law is not a basis under section 682.13 for vacating the award. Id. at 738 . Because the Defendants failed to prove any of the five statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award under section 682.13, we affirm both final judgments entered in the Plaintiffs’ favor....

at ⅜ sup was drafted and signed in, 2009. See § .682.013, Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing that the 2013 Revised

...to prevent arbitration from becoming merely an added preliminary step to judicial resolution rather than a true alternative.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We review findings of fact for competent substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Id. Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth the only grounds on which an award of an arbitrator must be vacated....

...hnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 1989) (quoting Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla.1951)). As relevant here, an arbitrator’s award must be vacated when the arbitrator exceeds his or her powers. See § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...when he or she goes beyond the authority granted by the parties or the operative documents and decides an issue not pertinent to the resolution of the issue submitted to arbitration.” Schnurmacher Holding, Inc., 542 So. 2d at 1329. Whether an arbitrator exceeded his authority within the meaning of section 682.13 is an issue of law subject to de novo review....

...That the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy. 9. U.S.C. § 11. Plaintiff's argument for vacating or modifying the award relies primarily on the Florida Arbitration Code, Florida Statutes Section 682.11 (relating to arbitrators' authority), Section 682.13(c) (relating to vacating an award), and Section 682.14(b) (relating to modification of an award)....

...National Millwork argues the attempt to expand judicial review renders the arbitration provision void and unenforceable. We agree that the attempt to expand the scope of judicial review is unenforceable. A court may vacate an arbitration award in limited and specifically enumerated situations. § 682.13, Fla. Stat. Those situations include an arbitration award “procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means,” or when there is “evident partiality,” corruption, or misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. § 682.13(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. An arbitration award may also be vacated when an arbitrator refuses to postpone a hearing or conducts a hearing without notice to a party, exceeds the powers given to the arbitrator, or when there was no agreement to arbitrate. § 682.13(1)(c)- (f), Fla....

...682.081; 3  *** (f) The right to confirmation of an award as provided under s. 682.12; (g) The grounds for vacating an arbitration award under s. 682.13; (h) The grounds for modifying an arbitration award under s. 682.14[.] § 682.014(3)(d), (f), (g), and (h), Fla....

...defendants declining to participate, the plaintiffs conducted further proceedings, such proceedings and the resulting arbitration award in the plaintiffs’ favor are nullities, 1 and the defendants’ failure to move timely to vacate the award, see § 682.13, Fla.Stat....

...The arbitrator issued an award finding the matters to be res judicata and denying Thomas’, claim which led to Byars moving for confirmation of the award and Thomas moving for a trial de novo. Without specifying the basis for its ruling, the trial court vacated the arbitration award. Pursuant to Section 682.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2005), a trial “court shall vacate an award when ......

...ty of the acts of misconduct set forth in the statute, the award operates as a final and conclusive judgment. Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla.1989) (quoting Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla.1951)). See also § 682.13(1), Fla....

...direct appeal from a trial court’s ruling in a breach of contract case. The errors claimed by appellant all relate to errors in the arbitrator’s factual findings, conclusions, or interpretation of the contract, not to those factors enumerated in section 682.13(l)(a)-(e), which would justify a trial court in vacating an arbitrator’s decision....

...ment can be enforced in a court of justice.’ ” (quoting Local No. 234, etc. v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So.2d 818, 821 (Fla.1953))). VNA attempts to distinguish this case because the parties had gone through arbitration. VNA contends that section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009) provides a list of five circumstances under which a court will vacate an arbitral award. See Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla.1989). The list does not include illegality. VNA argues that the trial court therefore lacked the authority to vacate the award. While it is clear that section 682.13(1) does not include illegality, the issue as to whether a court will enforce an arbitral award on a contract that is allegedly illegal should be treated no differently....

vacated pursuant to section 682.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1983).3 Section 682.13(3) provides: In vacating

grounds argued for reversal are insufficient. See § 682.13(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and Sydney Paper Co. v

...panel had exceeded its powers by not applying the correct law, the court found that this was not a statutory ground for vacating the award and denied the petition. From this order, MCIC appeals. In order to vacate an arbitration award, one of the statutory grounds listed in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2015), must be present. One of the statutory grounds warranting vacatur is that there was “[e]vident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator[.]” § 682.13(1)(b)1., Fla....

...Here, the arbitrator properly considered the illegality of the subject contract in the “first instance.” The issue we must now confront is what standard the trial court should use if asked to review the arbitrator’s ruling on illegality. We begin our examination of this question by considering section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2007), which deals with a party’s request for a trial court to vacate an arbitration award....

...etermined in a proceeding under section 682.03, and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection. We have specifically held that in order to vacate an arbitration award a party must establish one of the five section 682.13 grounds....

...The Florida Supreme Court in Schnurmacher specifically held that “An award of arbitration may not be reversed on the ground that the arbitrator made an error of law.” Id. at 1329 . The high court went on to conclude that if the arbitrators are not guilty of one of the acts of misconduct listed in section 682.13, the award acts as a final and conclusive judgment....

Haught, 435 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1981). LETTS, GLICKSTEIN

...ay Seville Properties, Inc., had not been made a party to the arbitration proceedings. The arbitration tribunal ultimately entered an award in favor of Simpson and against Robinson, Lundquist, and Miller, jointly. Robinson and Lundquist, pursuant to Section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1977), moved to vacate the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrators exceeded their powers because: 1) a demand for arbitration had not been made against Bay Seville Properties, Inc., the principal to the...

...2d 96, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citation omitted). “The trial court’s decision to confirm or vacate the arbitration award is reviewed for an abuse of extremely limited discretion.” Id. Whether an arbitration award can be vacated is governed by section 682.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2016), 1 which states, “Upon motion of a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate an arbitration award if ....

...goes beyond the authority granted by the parties or the operative documents and decides an issue not pertinent to the resolution of the issue submitted to arbitration.” Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327, 1329 (Fla. 1989). Additionally, section 682.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2016), states, “Upon motion of a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate an arbitration award if ....

...arbitration clause.” Id. at 638. The court concluded that no nexus existed between the dispute and contract: the contract dealt with the “sale and purchase of a house”—not 1This statute was amended in 2013. Prior to 2013, this provision was section 682.13(1)(c). 4 tort....

...Finally the arbitrator found that these improper documents and erroneous evaluations entered into the decision not to renew Watson’s contract. Therefore, the arbitrator ordered that Watson be offered a contract for 1979/80. The Board moved in circuit court to have the arbitration award vacated. Citing *1055 § 682.13, Florida Statutes (1979) 1 the Board stated that the arbitrator exceeded his power (1) when he held the evaluations to be arbitrable; (2) when he ordered removal of the four documents not previously subject to the grievance procedure or spe...

...Watson has made no argument on appeal that she was entitled to reinstatement to her job even if only two of the six letters were removed from her file. We therefore conclude that such an argument has been waived. AFFIRMED. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. . Section 682.13 provides, in pertinent part: —Vacating an award.— (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (c) The arbitrators or the umpire in the course of his jurisdiction exceeded their powers....

arbitrate made on or after July 1, 2013.’,’ Id. § 682.013(1). It "does not affect an action or proceeding

...no prevailing party, this is not a basis upon which an arbitration award may be vacated or reversed." (citing Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327, 1329-30 (Fla. 1989))). The failure, however, would not be wholly unreviewable. See § 682.13, Fla....

...See Ripple v. Packard, 471 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Fridman v. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc., 596 So.2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), overruled on other grounds by Tumberry Assocs. v. Service Station Aid, Inc., 651 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1995); see also § 682.13(3), 682.20(1)(e), Fla....

award should be vacated in accordance with section 682.-13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides

...vacating an arbitration award. Mock, the plaintiff during arbitration, argued that the arbitration panel had exceeded its authority by applying an incorrect burden of proof; the circuit court accepted Mock’s contention and vacated the award under section 682.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes. Id. Upon review, however, we observed that “Application of an incorrect standard [by the arbitrator(s) ] ... has consistently been rejected as a basis for vacating an award under section 682.13(l)(c),” effectively eliminating the sole basis upon which the circuit court’s order to vacate rested. Id. at 627 . We also held that “[i]n the absence of one of these five factors [listed in section 682.13(1) ], neither the trial court nor this court has the authority to overturn the arbitration award.” Id....

...� The term ‘clearly established lavd refers to ‘recent controlling case law, rules of court, statutes, and constitutional law.’ ” State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Camley v. Lynch, 53 So.3d 1154, 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citations omitted). Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2010) 3 provides: *174 (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (b) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party. The proper interpretation and application of section 682.13(l)(b) appears to be a case of first impression in this district....

...Both parties rely primarily on Brandon Jones Sandall Zeide Kohn Chalal & Mus-so, P.A. v. Beasley & Hauser, P.A., 925 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). There, the Fourth District reviewed an appeal of a trial court’s order denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award under section 682.13(l)(b)....

...ce that the arbitrator was predisposed to rule for either party, and there was no indication that the arbitrator was biased or prejudiced in his role on the panel. Id. at 1144 . The Fourth District affirmed the trial court’s ruling, declaring that section 682.13(l)(b) “require[s] the complaining party to prove evident partiality prejudicing the rights of the party ......

...5th DCA 2006), which was favorably cited by the Brandon Jones court. Brandon Jones, 925 So.2d at 1145 . In RDC, *175 the Fifth District examined numerous state and federal cases to determine the appropriate standard for assessing motions to vacate an arbitration award under 682.13(l)(b)....

...By vacating the arbitration award and remanding for additional arbitration, the circuit court deprived petitioners of an award to which they were entitled, and future arbitration may render an entirely different result. Therefore, by failing to apply the proper test provided by the applicable version of section 682.13(l)(b) and interpreting case law, which resulted in vacatur of the arbitration award, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law....

justify vacating the arbitration award under section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1999), we affirm. I. “Whether

...les. The trial court subsequently entered final judgment in favor of DOC and DMS and against AFSCME and Parrish, the judgment now before us. AFSCME asks us to reverse, arguing that an "arbitration award can be vacated only upon the grounds stated in Section 682.13," Harris v....

...1st DCA 1983), and "cannot be set aside for mere errors of judgment either as to the law or as to the facts." Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla.1989) (quoting Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla. 1951)). AFSCME concedes that subsections 682.13(1)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (2007), provide that the court shall vacate an award when the "arbitrators or the umpire in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers" or "otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of s....

...I believe the trial court correctly concluded the 2007 "clarification" was invalid. In awarding the Petitioner the right to have his long expired health insurance reinstated, without requiring him to pay past premiums, the arbitrator exceeded his authority and entered an order beyond the scope of the arbitration. See § 682.13(1)(c) Fla....

...was no prevailing party, this is not a basis on which the arbitration award may be reversed.” We agree and affirm the trial court’s order. “To vacate an arbitration award, a party must establish one of the enumerated statutory grounds under section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes.” Talel Corp....

...682.06(3) not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing; or (f) The arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in s. 682.032 so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding. § 682.13(1), Fla....

...Regardless, Metalonis has failed to satisfy the heavy burden of showing that the Arbitration Award should be vacated under either the FAC or the FAA. Under the FAC, one of the specified grounds for vacating an arbitration award is if “[a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers[.]” § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...r’s decision, contending that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority or power and the arbitrator’s decision had violated public policy. Because the City failed to show that the award of the arbitrator was violative of any of the provisions of section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1995), we affirm....

...The City applied to the trial court to vacate the arbitrator’s decision. The lower court denied the relief sought by appellant, finding that it had not been shown that the arbitrator’s award violated any of the grounds for vacating an arbitration award set forth in section 682.13(l)....

...nderance of the evidence standard. Assuming, without deciding, that the application of the preponderance of evidence standard was required, the arbitrator’s use of the stricter standard is not a basis for vacating the arbitrator’s decision under section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1995). Cochran v. Broward County Police Benevolent Ass’n, Inc., 693 So.2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The grounds listed in section 682.13(1) are the only basis on which an arbitrator’s award may be vacated....

...ident of untruthfulness to a superior. We find the remaining issue raised in this appeal also to be without merit. The order under review is AFFIRMED. COSTELLO, DEDEE S., Associate Judge, concurs. BOOTH, J., specially concurs with written opinion. . Section 682.13(1) provides that: Upon application of a party, a court shall vacate an arbitrator's ward when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (b) There was evident partiality....; (c) The arbitrators or umpires in the course of his jurisdiction exceeded their powers; (d) The arbitrators ......

...��s contention that the trial court erred in considering Noriega’s motion to vacate, modify, and correct the arbitrator’s report. Schnur-macher claims that because the arbitrator had not committed any of the transgressions proscribed by sections 682.13(1)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (1985), none of the limited grounds for vacating the arbitration award existed. 4 Schnurmacher is correct in its observation that the statutorily enumerated grounds for vacating an arbitration award are absent here. We also reject Noriega’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in contravention of section 682.13(1)(c)....

...The owner, lessor, or person receiving the rent shall remit the tax to the department at the times and in the manner hereinafter provided for dealers to remit taxes under this chapter.... § 212.031(3), Fla.Stat. (1985). . The grounds for vacating an arbitration award are as follows: 682.13 Vacating an award.— (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means....

...682.06, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party. (e) There was no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law, unless the matter was determined in proceedings under s. 682.03 and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection.... §§ 682.13(1)(a)-(e), FIa.Stat....

...is ability to obtain employment elsewhere. Although the arbitrator did not have to apply the higher standard in this case, the sheriff has not provided us with any authority holding that this would be a ground for vacating an arbitration award under section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...The arbitrator ordered appellant restored to his rank, but out of deference to the sheriffs office’s good faith, denied back pay or benefits. The sheriff then filed a petition in circuit court to vacate the arbitrator’s award. The parties agree that the court’s authority to vacate the award is governed by section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2000). The circuit court gave no reason for vacating the award, but the sheriff argues that the arbitrator exceeded his power. § 682.13(c)....

...Therefore, appellants’ action in the trial court was essentially a suit to set aside the arbitration award and not an action for damages for wrongful termination of employment. The trial judge was correct in ruling that this action was time-barred, since it was not filed within the 90 day limitations period provided by section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1981), a provision of the Florida Arbitration Code relating to petitions to vacate arbitration awards, which statute more specifically applies to this action than the 5 year statute of limitation provided by section...

...The only ground for vacation, modification, or correction implicit within Architectural Concepts' motion was that the "arbitrator ... refused to hear evidence material to the controversy ... contrary to the provisions of s. 682.06, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party." § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed, see F.S.A. § 682.13.

...partnership of the professional associations. Timely appeal was taken of the “Order on Glick’s Renewed or Amended Application to Modify or Correct Arbitration Award Pursuant to Section 682.14 or Alternatively to Vacate the Award Pursuant to F.S. Section 682.13.” Final judgment was entered on July 6, 2005....

showing, the award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(l)(c). 542 So.2d at 1329. We find that the

...As the court in Noriega held: Once the parties agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration under the Florida Arbitration Code, they were bound by the decision of the arbitrator. No showing has been made that the arbitrator acted outside his jurisdiction. Absent that showing, the award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(l)(c)....

...As the court in Noriega held: Once the parties agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration under the Florida Arbitration Code, they were bound by the decision of the arbitrator. No showing has been made that the arbitrator acted outside his jurisdiction. Absent that showing, the award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(l)(c)....

...However, the Florida Arbitration Code, chapter 682, provides for several bases upon which a court can vacate an award. One is if "[t]here was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party." § 682.13(1)(b), Fla....

...We would hasten to add that even after an award is made, if a proceeding is pending to vacate the award, the arbitrator should avoid any ex parte contact with the parties, because under very limited circumstances the arbitration award may be vacated for another hearing in front of the arbitrator. See, e.g., § 682.13(3), Fla....

subject to being vacated, as urged, under Section 682.-13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). We have not

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 682.13, Fla....

...nforce the arbitration award, which provides: Upon application of a party to the arbitration, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award.... Section 682.13 requires a court to vacate an arbitration award under specified circumstances not applicable to this case....

...The arbitration award ultimately sustained the grievances and ordered that the Officers be compensated and allowed to pursue extra duty at future Ultra events. Following the award, the City filed a motion to vacate in the circuit court pursuant to section 682.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes, claiming the Arbitrator exceeded his authority....

...Here, there is no dispute that a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists. We therefore address the remaining two prongs: whether an arbitrable issue exists and whether the City waived its objection to the Arbitrator’s authority. 1. Whether an Arbitrable Issue Exists “Section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds upon which an award of an arbitrator in a statutory arbitration proceeding may be vacated ....

....” Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 1989); see also LeNeve v. Via S. Florida, L.L.C., 908 So. 2d 530, 534 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Where the party moving to vacate fails to prove one of the [statutory grounds set forth in § 682.13(1)], ‘neither a circuit court nor a district court of appeal has the authority to overturn the award.’” (quoting Schnurmacher, 542 So. 2d at 1328)). The City relies on section 682.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2017), which provides 4 that the court shall vacate an arbitration award if “[a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers ....

...finally to a Departmental Order, both of which are outside of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Moreover, the Departmental Order explicitly states that extra duty is a privilege and not a right. Consequently, we find that the Arbitrator exceeded his powers. See § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

as was the posture of Lake County, supra. Section 682.13(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1979). Appellee bargained

...Continental Can Co., 411 So.2d 1002 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). There the plaintiffs sought to set aside an arbitration award denying a grievance filed by the employees following their terminations. The court applied the shorter 90-day limitation period provided by the Florida Arbitration Code, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 682.13 (West Supp.1983), for petitions to vacate arbitration awards, even though plaintiffs’ damages might be measured partially in terms of lost wages....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Gaines Construction Co., 201 So.2d 242 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); Section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1975).

...Section 682.12, Florida Statutes (2001) provides: Upon application of a party to the arbitration, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in ss. 682.13 and 682.14....

...was not submitted to the arbitrator. The Third District in American Reliance Insurance Co. v. Devecht, 820 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), followed Moya , and held that in the absence of a motion to vacate, modify or clarify the award pursuant to section 682.13, Florida Statutes, an arbitrator’s award must be confirmed....

...or’s decision rendered on November 24,1981, should be vacated or confirmed. The parties agree that this proceeding is governed by the provisions of the Florida Arbitration Code, as contained in Chapter 682 of the Florida Statutes. Florida Statutes § 682.13(1) sets forth quite specifically the grounds for vacating an arbitration award: “(1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means....

...rticipated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection.” As set forth herein, the Court finds that the arbitrator’s decision in the aforesaid Case No: 80-22474 should be vacated based upon Subsections (b) and (c) of Florida Statutes § 682.13(1)....

...However, based upon the *763 testimony and evidence presented at trial and a review of the arbitrator’s decision in comparison with the intent of the parties, the Court cannot help but conclude that the decision violated the provisions of Florida Statutes § 682.13(l)(c)....

...Based upon the decision itself, as well as evidence presented at trial concerning the relationship between the arbitrator, James Wilson, and the purchasers, Yanakakis, there is evidence of partiality by the arbitrator or misconduct prejudicing the rights of a party so as to make the decision violative of Florida Statutes § 682.13(l)(b) as well....

...However, this disclosure, the Court finds, in no way limited the duty of the arbitrator to remain neutral and impartial. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds in favor of Pacre that the arbitrator’s decision of November 24, 1981, should be vacated pursuant to Florida Statutes § 682.13(l)(b) and (c)....

...the original judge lacked any basis to vacate the award. 2 These appeals followed. 3 An arbitration award shall be vacated where there has been “[m]isconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of the party to the arbitration proceeding.” § 682.13(1)(b)3., Fla....

...Thus, finding that Simmons had served for ten months at the reduced rank, the arbitrator ordered the City to reinstate him to the rank of captain with restoration of his captain’s salary and without loss of seniority. The City appealed the arbitrator’s order to the trial court pursuant to section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1999). The trial court found that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority under the terms of the CBA and vacated the arbitrator’s award pursuant to section 682.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). “[T]he standard of review of statutory arbitration awards is extremely limited.” Sch nurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1329 (Fla.1989). Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1999), provides the limited grounds for a trial court to vacate an award. Section 682.13(l)(c) authorizes the trial court to vacate an award when an arbitrator exceeds his or her power....

...ndent research. The circuit court denied Quesada’s motion on August 16, 2011, and he timely appealed the circuit court’s order. On appeal, Quesada argues that the arbitrator’s independent investigation of the facts constitutes misconduct under section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2011), and that he has been prejudiced by this misconduct. We agree. Section 682.13(1) provides that a court shall vacate an arbitration award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means....

...Because the arbitration panel ruled on entitlement to attorney’s fees without Car-vajal’s express waiver, it exceeded its powers. See Turnberry, 651 So.2d at 1175 . When “[t]he arbitrators or the umpire in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers,” the court is to vacate the award. § 682.13(l)(c), Fla....

...ill reasoned, “the arbitrator should have the opportunity to rehear the entire matter within the contractual parameters agreed to by the parties.” In sum, Judge Bidwill agreed with the parties that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. Because section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2019), requires a court upon motion to “vacate an arbitration award if . . . [a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers,” the court ruled that it would “vacate the award in its entirety and return the case to the [AAA] for rehearing, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 682.13(3).” 5  Judge Bidwill denied Genovese’s motion to be declared the prevailing party for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees and costs....

...d discretion.” Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 888 So. 2d 96, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Upon motion of a party, a court “shall vacate an arbitration award” if the arbitrator “exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...Because Genovese completely prevailed on the most significant issue in the case, Arbitrator Lynch did not deviate at all from controlling precedent. As noted above, a court “shall vacate an arbitration award” if the arbitrator “exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...panel had exceeded its powers by not applying the correct law, the court found that this was not a statutory ground for vacating the award and denied the petition. From this order, MCIC appeals. In order to vacate an arbitration award, one of the statutory grounds listed in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2015), must be present. One of those grounds warranting vacatur is a showing that there was “[e]vident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator[.]” § 682.13(1)(b)1., Fla....

...4th DCA 1995), [t]he fact that Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), requires a court to add prejudgment interest to a determination of liquidated damages by a jury or judge does not *1019 overcome the provisions of sections 682.13 and 682.14, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Those statutes allow a court to vacate or modify a final arbitration award in very limited circumstances, none of which apply here; the permitted grounds do not include legal error by the arbitrator. Preserve Estates, 657 So.2d at 60 (emphasis in original); see also § 682.13(e), Fla....

...This being so, it is urged that the arbitration award “should be referred back to the arbitrators or vacated because the arbitrary nature of the award has precluded meaningful judicial review as required by the Florida Arbitration Code.” Id. at 4; see §§ 682.13, 682.14, Fla.Stat....

..., Inc. cites none. Beyond that, the $725,000 award was well within the range of evidence adduced below as to lost profits, out-of-pocket expenses, and interest sought on this unliq-uidated claim; accordingly, the award is unassailable under Sections 682.13, 682.14, Florida Statutes (1987)....

..., as here, the award could have been entered on the evidence presented, was within the scope of the submission to arbitration, and where, as here, there is no clear showing that the award is *1228 the result of the arbitrator improprieties listed in Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...On appeal, the Fourth District began its analysis by noting that illegality of a contract is a compelling reason not to enforce a contract, citing several cases from Florida courts indicating a refusal to enforce illegal contracts. The district court then acknowledged that section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009), clearly does not include illegality of a contract as a basis to vacate an arbitral award....

...Id. On appeal, the Fifth District stated that the issue presented was limited to the standard a trial court should use in reviewing an arbitrator’s ruling on illegality. Id. at 1064. The Fifth District then noted that if a party failed to establish one of the five grounds for vacating an award provided in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2007), “neither a circuit court nor a district court of appeal has the authority to overturn the award.” Id....

...eview on a motion to vacate. Visiting Nurse Association argues before this Court that the Fourth District erred in holding that the trial court must determine whether a contract is legal prior to enforcement of an arbitration award because section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds on which a court shall vacate an arbitration award. Jupiter Medical - 14 - Center argues that contract illegality is an exception to the statute,6 and the arbitrators exceeded their powers pursuant to section 682.13(c)....

...to decide the legality of the contract; JMC, however, contends that a court must decide whether a contract is legal prior to enforcement of an arbitral award. Further, JMC contends that the arbitrators exceeded their powers within the meaning of section 682.13(c)....

...- 35 - principles of statutory construction to determine and effectuate legislative intent.’ ” Trinidad, 121 So. 3d at 439 (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. P.E., 14 So. 3d 228, 234 (Fla. 2009)). Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009), provides: (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. (...

...682.03 and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection. But the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award. § 682.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). The unambiguous language of section 682.13(1) does not include the term “illegality” or require a court to vacate an arbitrator’s “illegal construction of the underlying contract.” Further, the list of circumstances set forth in section 682.13(1) is directed at arbitral misconduct or lack of authority, - 36 - and not mere errors of law, or errors of construction or interpretation of a contract. Accordingly, although Florida courts are wont to refuse to enforce an illegal contract as noted by the Fourth District, the plain language of the statute constrains the courts’ authority to vacate awards to the five grounds set forth in section 682.13(1). See Jupiter Med. Ctr., 72 So. 3d at 186 (noting case law indicates that Florida courts will not enforce an illegal contract). Indeed, we have previously held that section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds upon which an award of an arbitrator may be vacated. In Schnurmacher, 542 So....

...essor rather than the lessee was obligated to pay sales tax on rental payments. The circuit court confirmed the award and the Third District Court of Appeal reversed. This Court held that “in the absence of one of the five factors set forth in [section 682.13], neither a trial court nor a district court of appeal has the authority to overturn the award” despite the arbitrator’s erroneous interpretation of the statutes governing sales tax obligations....

...Hardee Cnty. School Bd., 448 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 456 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1984), and Newport Motel, Inc. v. Cobin Rest., Inc., 281 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)); see also Felger v. Mock, 65 So. 3d 625, 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2009), sets forth the only grounds upon which an arbitration award in a statutory arbitration proceeding may be vacated. . . .”); Commercial Interiors, 19 So. 3d at 1064 (“We have specifically held that in order to vacate an arbitration award a party must establish one of the five section 682.13 grounds.”). Accordingly, section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds upon which an arbitration award will be vacated and an arbitration panel’s alleged construction of a contract to be an unlawful agreement is not one of those five grounds. Jupiter Medical Center, however, argues that there is a public policy exception to the statute....

...As petitioner notes, the finality and enforceable nature of an arbitration award is a characteristic of arbitration that distinguishes it from other forms of alternative dispute resolution. To allow judicial review of the merits of an arbitration award for any reasons other than those stated in section 682.13(1) would undermine the purpose of settling disputes through arbitration....

...arbitral decision would amount to simple disagreement with an arbitrator’s application of the law to the facts. - 40 -  Likewise, we find that the circumstances presented here do not merit relief pursuant to section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), because the arbitrators did not exceed their powers. 2....

...eded their powers because the panel interpreted the purchase agreement in a manner that would violate state and federal laws, regulations, and rules resulting in both civil and criminal penalties. Because the phrase “exceeded their powers” in section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), does not encompass misinterpretations of contractual provisions or other errors of law, but is jurisdictional in nature, we disagree. In Schnurmacher, this Court discussed the meaning of “exceeded their powers” as follows: Section 682.13(1)(c) declares that an arbitration award may be vacated if it is shown that the arbitrator exceeded his or her power. Respondent now urges us to interpret subsection (c) to include that if an arbitrator departs from t...

...the issue submitted to arbitration). The 2009 version of the statute, applicable here, provides that a court shall vacate an award when “[t]he arbitrators or the umpire in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers.”15 § 682.13(1)(c) (2009)....

...n award to be misconduct-oriented or process-oriented. For instance, the statute provides circumstances under which an award could be vacated such as corruption, fraud, 15. This section was subsequently amended in 2013. It was changed to section 682.13(1)(d) and provides that a court shall vacate an award when “an arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” It is not clear why the “in the course of her or his jurisdiction” language was stricken from the statute....

...f the issue submitted to arbitration.”16 See Schnurmacher, 542 So. 2d at 1329; Oxford Health, 133 S. Ct. at 2069. Accordingly, the arbitration panel did not exceed its powers. 16. If JMC’s argument did apply, such a construction of section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), would lead to parties such as VNA contesting an arbitrator’s determination that a contract is illegal and unenforceable on the very same grounds....

...Ross's claims and ruling in favor of Prospectsplus!. Oddly, Ms. Ross thereafter filed a petition in circuit court pursuant to section 682.12, Florida Statutes (2014), to confirm the award in her unsuccessful arbitration. She did not seek to vacate the unsuccessful award for any of the reasons enumerated in section 682.13....

...In this case, however, the arbitrators found that the Understanding is an agreement "separate and distinct" from the BDO partnership agreement, and that the Understanding is governed by the substantive law of Florida. Those determinations are not subject to judicial review under any of the limited grounds enumerated in section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...Walter Smith appeals the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award. Finding no error in the trial court’s decision, we affirm. Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited. Chandra v. Bradstreet, 727 So.2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 741 So.2d 1134 (Fla.1999). Section 682.13 of the Florida Statute (1999) sets forth the statutory grounds which must be present before an arbitration award can be vacated: 682.13....

...682.06, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party. (e) There was no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law, unless the matter was determined in proceedings under s. 682.03 and unless the party participated in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection. *365 § 682.13, Fla....

...ments, and decides an issue not pertinent to the resolution of the issues submitted to arbitration. 542 So.2d at 1329 . The court further noted: To allow judicial review of the merits of an arbitration award for any reason other than those stated in § 682.13(1) would undermine the purpose of settling disputes through arbitration....

discussion is whether the appellee complied with § 682.13 Fla.Stat.1 The appellee argues that Rule of Civil

...From this final judgment, Jomar appeals the initial arbitration award, Bayview appeals the post-award interest, and both parties cross-appeal the attorney’s fee award. 2  Jomar’s claim that the arbitrator’s comments at the hearing on arbitration showed evident partiality under section 682.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), is without merit....

...We do not understand the comments of the arbitrator as giving “tips” to one side. In its second claim, Jomar argues the arbitrator exceeded his powers by awarding interest to Bayview after the trial court had confirmed the arbitrator’s previous award under section 682.12, Florida Statutes (2010). Section 682.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), provides an arbitration award shall be vacated when “[t]he arbitrators or the umpire in the course of her or his jurisdiction exceeded their powers.” Because the arbitrator lost jurisdiction, according to Jomar, the award could not be amended to include pre-award interest....

...as adduced that the August 1985 notice was actually sent to Allen. Moreover, the issue of whether a party has been sufficiently notified of an arbitration hearing is one which is to be resolved in the arbitration proceeding itself, not in the court. § 682.13, Fla.Stat....

PER CURIAM. Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award. We affirm. The record demonstrates conclusively that none of the factors specified in section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1993), support vacating the arbitration award....

...The alleged acts and statements of one member of the panel of three arbitrators did not rise to the level of “evident partiality,” nor did defendants demonstrate that the allegations of bias, even if true, prejudiced the rights of any party as required by section 682.13. See also Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1329 (Fla.1989) (arbitration award may be set aside only upon grounds enumerated in section 682.13; principle of finality of arbitration awards must be adhered to “in order to preserve the integrity of the arbitration process as a means of alternative dispute resolution”)....

...as in a “troubled condition,” as is defined by section 303.101(c), Code of Federal Regulations. This designation requires approval of the OCC and the FDIC before a golden parachute payment may be made. 2 section 682.13, Florida Statutes, see § 682.12, Fla....

...See § 682.181, Fla. Stat. (2022). Where a party to an arbitration award moves to confirm an arbitration award, “the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to s. 682.10 or s. 682.14 or is vacated pursuant to s. 682.13.” § 682.12, Fla....

...Stat. (2022). Barring allegations that an arbitration award was procured through corruption, fraud or other undue means, a motion to vacate an arbitration award “must be filed within 90 days after the movant receives notice of the award[.]” § 682.13(2), Fla....

...Costanzo, 216 So. 3d 644, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). 2 arbitration award and the trial court denies the motion, and no “motion to modify or correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the award.” § 682.13(4), Fla....

...(2022) (emphasis added). In this appeal, as below, Fisten concedes that his Vacatur Motion, although timely filed, was legally insufficient because the motion’s allegations were in conclusory form without supporting facts demonstrating the applicability of any of section 682.13(1)’s enumerated grounds for vacating the arbitration award. See Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 1989) (“Section 682.13(1) sets forth the only grounds upon which an award of an arbitrator in a statutory arbitration proceeding may be vacated[.] ....

...hich the Court could determine that the Arbitrator is guilty of misconduct, particularly in light of the great deference federal courts extend to arbitrators’ procedural decisions.”). Indeed, the Vacatur Motion merely cited the provisions of section 682.13(1) and alleged that “[a]t the appropriate time, FISTEN will file and serve an Amended Petition/Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award, in which he will fully present all of his grounds to vacate that award, with appropriate citations...

...4 arbitration award before it, “the trial court had no discretion but to confirm the award as rendered.” Broward Cnty. v. Paraprof’l Ass’n v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 406 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); see § 682.13(4), Fla. Stat....

...The arbitrator then found the appropriate remedy was for appellee to be hired by the Board as a behavioral technician and receive backpay from the date of his filed grievance. After appellee moved to confirm the award, the Board moved to vacate the award under section 682.13, Florida Statutes (2022), and argued the ordered remedy exceeded the scope of the arbitrator’s authority under the CBA....

...vidence. LeNeve v. Via S. Fla., L.L.C., 908 So. 2d 530, 534 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Boyhan v. Maguire, 693 So. 2d 659, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). To vacate an arbitration award, the movant must establish one of six statutory grounds set forth in section 682.13(1). See LeNeve, 908 So. 2d at 534. Among the six grounds is that the “arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” § 682.13(1)(d), Fla....

...f competent jurisdiction to be enforceable. While the standard of review is highly deferential to the arbitrator’s findings and arbitration awards can be confirmed even if legally incorrect, such an award must nonetheless stay within the bounds of section 682.13....

PER CURIAM. Orell Brooks, the appellant, appeals an order vacating an arbitration award reducing his dismissal for a positive drug result to a conditional suspension. Because the arbitrator did not exceed her authority as contemplated by section 682.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), we reverse....

...The agreement conferred authority on the arbitrator, under Section 5.9, to determine an appropriate remedy for a violation of the Agreement. Thus, the record shows that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority. As such, the arbitration award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(l)(c)....

PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of the appeal and cross-appeal, we affirm the Final Judgment and post-trial orders. Appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of evident partiality on the part of the neutral arbitrator. § 682.13, Fla.Stat....

prejudice substantially the rights of a party. § 682.13(1)(d), Fla.Stat. (1997). Based upon our careful

the franchise in May 2010. See § 682.013(2), Fla. Stat. (2013) (unless the parties agree

...vacate an arbitration award, 2 the Florida Arbitration Code states that a motion to vacate “must be filed within 90 days after the movant receives notice of the award . . . unless the movant alleges that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means[.]” § 682.13(2), Fla. Stat....

...as follows: The American Arbitration Association has no jurisdiction because two of the vehicles were insured and there is a question of liability. No determination was made as to the liability or damages. Subsequently, pursuant to the provisions of Section 682.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), the appellees filed an action as plaintiffs seeking to set aside the award....

PER CURIAM. Shirley Sachs, who procured a favorable arbitration award, was denied attorney’s fees by the arbiters. She filed a petition for the fees, which the trial court dismissed. We affirm that order. Sachs nei *212 ther moved to vacate, see § 682.13(2), Fla....

...2011). 4 standard and legal questions are reviewed de novo.’” LaNeve v. Via S. Fla., L.L.C., 908 So. 2d 530, 534 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). On appeal, Balaguer again contends that the arbitrator in the instant case exceeded her powers pursuant to section 682.13(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which governs vacating an arbitration award.5 “An arbitrator exceeds her power when she ‘goes beyond the authority granted by the parties or the operative documents and decides an issue not pertinent to the resolution of the issue submitted to arbitration.’” LaNeve, 908 So....

...he merits of Balaguer’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Agreement when she awarded the shortfall to Physicians. We are unable to determine from this record what evidence was introduced at the hearing, what 5 Section 682.13 states: (1) Upon motion of a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate and arbitration award if: … (d) An arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers…....

...discretion to vacate an arbitration award. Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 888 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). To prevail on a motion to vacate an arbitration award, a party must establish one of the five grounds set forth in section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (2007), which provides: *391 (1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award when: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means....

...hnurmacher Holding Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla.1989). The Union contends that by “modifying” an agreement containing a no-modification clause, the arbitrator exceeded his powers in the course of his jurisdiction, thereby violating section 682.13(1)(c)....

...ing; or (f) The arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in s. 682.032 so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding. § 682.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2014); see also Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So. 2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 1989) (holding, absent a statutory basis for doing so under 4 section 682.13(1), “neither a trial court nor a district court of appeal has the authority to overturn the [arbitration] award”). A party may also move the trial court to modify or correct an arbitration award....

...the party may make a motion to the court for an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to s. 682.10 or s. 682.14 or is vacated pursuant to s. 682.13. § 682.12, Fla....

...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....

...motion to vacate. Laguna argued that the arbitrators’ refusal of its request for a postponement of the August 10, 1998 arbitration date had been unreasonable. As a result, Laguna contended, the arbitration award must be vacated in accordance with section 682.13(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides for vacating an arbitration award where the arbitrators “refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor.” The trial court, agreeing with La-guna, vacated th...

...For the following reasons, we conclude that Flavio’s motion should have been granted. In order to preserve the effectiveness of the arbitration process, a high degree of conclusiveness is attached to an arbitration award, which award may not be set aside by the court except upon the grounds set forth in section 682.13, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...Bradstreet, 727 So.2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Verzura Constr., Inc. v. Surfside Ocean, Inc., 708 So.2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Applewhite v. Sheen Fin. Resources, Inc., 608 So.2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Although a refusal to postpone a hearing is one of the grounds listed in section 682.13, the statute does not require automatic vacation of an award in all such situations....

...ward was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (b) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party .... ” [e.s.] § 682.13(1), Fla....

...evident partiality prejudicing the rights of the party. 2 In other words, the partiality of the neutral must be obvious and plain and must be shown to have unfairly affected the rights of the complaining party. The Fifth District recently construed section 682.13(l)(b) in RDC Golf of Florida 1, Inc....

...c request for rescission in the submission to the arbitrator. However, in this case we think the award exceeded the powers of the arbitrator. See Complete Interiors, Inc. v. Behan, 558 So.2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 570 So.2d 1303 (Fla.1990); § 682.13(1)(c), Fla.Stat....

...Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327 (Fla.1989); Cuevas v. Potamkin Dodge, Inc., 483 So.2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Loxahatchee River Environmental Control Dist. v. Guy Villa & Sons, Inc., 371 So.2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979); § 682.13(l)(c), Fla.Stat....