Palm Garden of Healthcare Holdings, LLC v. Haydu

• Decision Date: 20 January 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 5D16–2568
• Citation: 209 So.3d 636
• Parties: PALM GARDEN OF HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, Palm Garden Healthcare Management, LLC and Palm Garden of Orlando, Appellants, v. Valerie HAYDU as Power of Attorney for James Yongue, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

209 So.3d 636

PALM GARDEN OF HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, Palm Garden Healthcare Management, LLC and Palm Garden of Orlando, Appellants,

v.Valerie HAYDU as Power of Attorney for James Yongue, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16–2568

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed January 20, 2017

Kristen K. Ullman and Amy D. Prevatt, of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Tampa, for Appellants.

Ian P. Depagnier and Jason A. Paul, of Paul & Perkins, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

LAMBERT, J.

Palm Garden of Orlando, LLC, and Palm Healthcare Management, LLC, (collectively "Appellants") appeal the trial court's nonfinal order denying their motion to compel arbitration against Appellee, Valerie Haydu("Haydu"), as Power of Attorney for James Yongue("Yongue").The court, following an evidentiary hearing, found that there had not been a "sufficient showing" to establish that either Yongue or Haydu, acting on behalf of and with the consent of Yongue, had entered into a binding arbitration agreement.¹We affirm.

On January 8, 2015, Yongue was released from an Orlando hospital to be directly admitted to the Palm Garden of Orlando nursing home facility.The following day, Haydu executed an agreement prepared by Appellants, admitting Yongue as a resident to the nursing home.Contained within this admissions agreement was an optional arbitration agreement, waiving Yongue's right to a trial by jury and agreeing to binding arbitration.

On January 11, 2015, Yongue suffered a "major aspirational event" at the nursing home and was transported to a local hospital.Yongue never returned to the nursing home.Haydu subsequently obtained power of attorney from Yongue and filed suit on his behalf against Appellants, alleging that this hospitalization and Yongue's injuries and damages were proximately caused by Appellants' negligent care and treatment of Yongue while a resident at the nursing home.In response, Appellants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Yongue gave verbal and written consent to Haydu to sign the admissions agreement containing the arbitration agreement on his behalf,² thereby binding Yongue to resolve his claims against Appellants through arbitration.

The evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration consisted of the depositions of Haydu and Jasper Buzon("Buzon"), the admissions director for the nursing home,³ a few documents, including the admissions agreement, and live testimony from Buzon.Yongue did not testify nor was he deposed prior to the hearing because, as acknowledged by the parties, the "aspirational event"he suffered on January 11, 2015, prohibited him from verbally communicating.In the order on appeal, the trial court discussed the evidence presented from both parties and, in denying the motion, held that a binding agreement for arbitration had not been entered into by Yongue or by Haydu on Yongue's behalf.

Appellate review of whether a trial court erred in denying a motion to compel arbitration presents "a mixed question of law and fact."Fonte v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc. , 903 So.2d 1019, 1023(Fla. 4th DCA2005)(quotingGainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston , 857 So.2d 278, 283(Fla. 1st DCA2003) )."Orders denying motions for arbitration are reviewed de novo, except that factual findings are reviewed for support by competent, substantial evidence."Fi–Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil , 118 So.3d 859, 862(Fla. 5th DCA2013)(citingBest v. Educ. Affiliates, Inc. , 82 So.3d 143, 145(Fla. 4th DCA2012) ).

Three elements are considered by the court under the Revised Florida Arbitration Code⁴ when ruling on a motion to compel arbitration: "(1) whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) whether an arbitrable issue exists; and (3) whether the right to arbitration was waived."Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp. , 750 So.2d 633, 636(Fla.1999)(citation omitted).Here, only the first element is at issue.Appellants, as the proponents of arbitration, have the burden of establishing an enforceable written agreement to arbitrate.

SeeSteve Owren, Inc. v. Connolly , 877 So.2d 918, 920(Fla. 4th DCA2004)(citingShearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Lifshutz , 595 So.2d 996, 997(Fla. 4th DCA1992) ).

The evidence before the trial court on whether there was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the admissions agreement was conflicting.Haydu acknowledged that she signed the agreement but testified that she did so only after a telephone conversation with Buzon, during which Buzon advised her that the agreement would be left in Yongue's room and needed to be executed for Yongue to continue receiving his medication and treatment.Haydu also testified that she advised Buzon that she had no power of attorney or other authority given to her by Yongue to execute the agreement on his behalf.In contrast, Buzon testified that he would have explained the admissions agreement to both Yongue and Haydu and that Yongue gave verbal consent for Haydu to sign the agreement on his behalf, as evidenced by Yongue's signature on the document directly above Haydu's and Buzon's signatures as witnesses, acknowledging that he had given verbal consent to Haydu to sign the admissions agreement on his behalf.Haydu, however, testified that: (1)she did not recognize the signature on the agreement to be that of her father's; (2) when she signed the agreement in her father's dimly-lit room, Buzon was not present, and Yongue was either sleeping or falling asleep; and (3)she did not know why Yongue did not sign the agreement.

What is undisputed and found by the court is that Yongue was competent to decide whether to give Haydu the authority to execute the admissions agreement on his behalf.In the order on appeal, the court found the evidence was insufficient to establish that Yongue had entered into a binding agreement for arbitration.However, even if Yongue did not sign the agreement, a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement is bound to the agreement "when the signatory ... is authorized to act as the agent of the person sought to be bound."Stalley v. Transitional Hosps. Corp. of Tampa, Inc. , 44 So.3d 627, 630(Fla. 2d DCA2010);see alsoFi–Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Robinson , 172 So.3d 493, 495(Fla. 5th DCA2015).In addressing whether Haydu was authorized by Yongue to execute this agreement, the trial court found that it was undisputed that Haydu did not have a legal power of attorney from Yongue to execute documents on his behalf.While accurate,⁵ this is not dispositive because the appropriate analysis in determining...