Shearson, Hammill & Co. v. Vouis, s. 70--1194
| Decision Date | 20 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | 70--1203,Nos. 70--1194,s. 70--1194 |
| Citation | 247 So.2d 733 |
| Parties | Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,912 SHEARSON, HAMMILL & CO., Inc., and Alfred Cinque, Petitioner, v. George VOUIS, Respondent (two cases). |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Shutts & Bowen and Robert A. Jarvis, Miami, for petitioner-appellant.
Joel Hirschhorn, Miami, and Joseph Paglino, No. Miami Beach, for respondent-appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
Shearson, Hammill & Co., Inc. and Alfred Cinque, the defendants below, seek review of an order of the circuit court denying their motion to stay pending court proceedings and to compel arbitration. The issues have been presented to this court by an interlocutory appeal and by a petition for a writ of certiorari. Both proceedings were consolidated for appellate review. Having found that an interlocutory appeal is not available to review the lower court order in a common law action, we dismiss the interlocutory appeal. Noble v. McNeal, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 126; Flagler Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami v. Whiting, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 555. However, all the matters sought to be reviewed in both proceedings will be considered upon the petition for certiorari.
Respondent George Vouis filed a complaint on June 26, 1970, against the defendants, alleging misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duties relating to the value of certain stock and margin call requirements for the purchase on March 30, 1970, of certain securities on his margin account with defendants. Defendants admitted that plaintiff, their customer, purchased those securities on margin. In addition to denying all allegations as to misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duties, they raised an affirmative defense concerning arbitration. Plaintiff only admits signing the printed 'Customer's Margin Agreement' dated September 24, 1969, which contains the following paragraph:
Plaintiff also admits making a written demand dated July 14, 1970, that the instant controversy be submitted to arbitration befor the American Arbitration Association, in Miami, Florida, '* * * but without prejudice to the Plaintiff's (Vouis') right to proceed with his action in Circuit Court * * *' which Vouis instituted by filing a complaint on July 26, 1970. Vouis' demand for arbitration was made in reply to a letter sent by Shearson that in the event Vouis defaulted in the exercise of his rights under the arbitration provision, Shearson would exercise its rights and demand arbitration.
Shearson and Cinque have presented the following contentions: the circuit court departed from essential requirements of law by refusing to stay the court proceedings and refusing to compel arbitration under the parties' contract. They also contend that under the contract New York law governs and requires enforcement of the arbitration provision; but, if Florida law applied, the same result should be reached under the Florida Arbitration Code, Ch. 682, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Vouis argues that: A defrauded party can sue in tort for fraud arising from a contractual relationship under the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sabates v. International Medical Centers, Inc., 83-1949
...mandates that the dispute be resolved in a judicial forum, the policy favoring arbitration will yield. See Shearson, Hammill & Co. v. Vouis, 247 So.2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 253 So.2d 444 (Fla.1971) (where agreement to arbitrate inconsistent with provision of Florida Securities La......
-
Young v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
...least at this point. 1 In so holding, the trial court overlooked the controlling decision of this district in Shearson, Hammill & Co., Inc. v. Vouis, 247 So.2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 253 So.2d 444 (Fla.1971), which is directly contrary to Melamed. Although the Vouis opinion has be......
-
Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young
...the enforcement of an arbitration agreement when a dispute concerns securities in interstate commerce. Shearson, Hammill & Co. v. Vouis, 247 So.2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Petitioner first urges that section 517.241, Florida Statutes (1981) does not contain an express prohibition against arb......
-
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Westwind Transp., Inc.
...v. Mait, 712 F.2d 1148 (7th Cir.1983); Young v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 434 So.2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Shearson Hammill & Co., Inc. v. Vouis, 247 So.2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 253 So.2d 444 To summarize, we hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of l......