Associate Attorney
In Waterfront in Naples Condominium Association, Inc. v. Reynolds Ventures, Inc., the Sixth District held that a party was entitled to a trial de novo following non-binding arbitration because its timely filing sufficiently notified the opposing party that it was rejecting the arbitration decision and requesting a trial.
What happened:
After non-binding arbitration, the Association timely filed a document titled “Motion and Request for Trial De Novo.” The filing requested a trial de novo under section 44.103(5) and Rule 1.820(h), but did not expressly use the words “notice of rejection.”
The trial court determined that the filing did not comply with the amended Rule 1.820(h), entered judgment on the arbitration award, and denied the Association a trial.
The Sixth District reversed.
The court held that the Association’s timely filing satisfied the statute and the rule because the document, read as a whole, clearly constituted both a rejection of the arbitration decision and a request for trial. The court emphasized that the Association was not relying on its subsequent conduct or other filings—the document itself provided the required notice.
Why it matters (for trial lawyers):
• Rule 1.820(h) requires a notice rejecting the arbitration decision and a request for trial to be filed within 20 days.
• The court focused on the actual language of the timely filing, rather than requiring magic words.
• The court distinguished cases rejecting “substantial compliance” because those cases involved conduct or documents that were not themselves timely filings under Rule 1.820(h).
• The Sixth District certified conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in People’s Trust Insurance Co. v. Hernandez and the Third District’s decision in Sanchez v. People’s Trust Insurance Co.
Takeaway:
When requesting a trial de novo after non-binding arbitration, file within 20 days and make the filing unmistakably clear. While this case provides some protection where the filing’s substance demonstrates both rejection and a request for trial, the safest practice is to expressly state both.
When a rule has a strict deadline, don’t rely on implication. Say exactly what you mean—and file it on time.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.