Chapman v. King Motor Co. of South Florida, 4D01-4993.
| Decision Date | 04 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D01-4993.,4D01-4993. |
| Citation | 833 So.2d 820 |
| Parties | John CHAPMAN and Terry G. VILLAIRE, Appellants, v. KING MOTOR COMPANY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sharon C. Degnan and Diane H. Tutt of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., Plantation, for appellants.
Ricardo A. Reyes of Tobin & Reyes, P.A., Boca Raton and Nancy W. Gregoire of Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum, Keller, McIntyre & Gregoire, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
In this appeal, appellants/plaintiffs challenge the trial court's order requiring the parties to arbitrate their case before they had the opportunity to conduct discovery and have an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the unconscionability of the arbitration clause. Because we conclude that an evidentiary hearing is required, we reverse.
Appellants filed a complaint for violations of the Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for fraud and deceit in connection with the purchase of an automobile from defendant. They further alleged that the arbitration agreement contained in the documents they signed was unconscionable. Without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered the case to arbitration.
A trial court's decision on the validity of an arbitration agreement is a matter of contract interpretation subject to de novo review. See Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v. LVWD, Ltd., 766 So.2d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). To support a finding of unconscionability sufficient to invalidate an arbitration clause, the court must find that the contract is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. See Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So.2d 570, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). On its face, the terms of the arbitration provision in this case reveal similar concerns as to its substantive unconscionability as were found in Powertel where it required appellants to waive certain legal remedies, including their consumer rights under the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. See id. at 576. See also Bellsouth Mobility LLC v. Christopher, 819 So.2d 171, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Appellants' allegations of procedural unconscionability also raise issues of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing.
We therefore reverse and remand for the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the validity of the arbitration clause.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc.
...878 So.2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), Bellsouth Mobility, LLC v. Christopher, 819 So.2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Chapman v. King Motor, 833 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), all cases involving remedial statutes, we engaged in an unconscionability analysis. We now clarify that holding a contr......
-
Pritchard v. Dent Wizard International Corp.
...clause, the court must find that the contract is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable." Chapman v. King Motor Co. of S. Fla., 833 So.2d 820, 821 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002) (citing Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So.2d 570, 574 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999)). Procedural unconscionability re......
-
Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
...4th DCA 2003); Consol. Resources Healthcare Fund I, Ltd. v. Fenelus, 853 So.2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Chapman v. King Motor Co. of So. Fla., 833 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Bellsouth Mobility LLC v. Christopher, 819 So.2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Gainesville Health Care, 857 So.2d 278;......
-
CLOTFELTER v. CABOT Inv. PROPERTIES LLC.
...an arbitration provision is unconscionable, Florida and Georgia employ similar legal analyses. See Chapman v. King Motor Co. of South Florida, 833 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); NEC Technologies, Inc. v. Nelson, 478 S.E. 2d 769 (Ga. 1996). Accordingly, the Court finds that honoring the Purc......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...the court must find that the clause is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Chapman v. King Motor Co. of S. Fla. , 833 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The county court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Agreement is unconscionable before deciding wheth......