- Court
- Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
- Case Number
- 4D2025-2522
- Date Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Judges
- Per Curiam
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
Background
H.V. Albrecht filed a complaint alleging that James L. Owens and other appellants violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) in connection with her purchase of a vehicle from appellants’ dealership. The appellants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to two identical arbitration agreements — an electronically signed sales contract and a hand-signed vehicle buyer’s order — which they claimed Albrecht had executed incident to her purchase.
Following an evidentiary hearing on the motion to compel arbitration, the trial court took the matter under advisement and later entered a written order denying the motion. The court appeared to make preliminary factual findings but noted that “these appear to be issues for determination by a jury.” The court also found that “the disputed evidence and testimony does not establish for the Court that the [Appellee] was sufficiently advised and agreed to Arbitration.”
Holding
The Fourth DCA reversed and remanded. The court applied the three-element framework from Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla. 1999): (1) whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) whether an arbitrable issue exists; and (3) whether the right to arbitration was waived. Because elements (2) and (3) were undisputed, the only question was whether a valid agreement existed.
The court held that the trial court erred by “kicking the can down the road” — noting disputed issues remain for a jury rather than resolving them. The court emphasized that “the court — not the jury — must resolve issues regarding arbitrability and decide any factual disputes at a preliminary evidentiary hearing,” citing Jalis Construction, Inc. v. Mintz, 724 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Because the trial court held an evidentiary hearing but failed to make the required factual determinations, the matter was remanded for the court to do so.
Key Takeaways
- When the existence of an arbitration agreement is disputed, the trial court — not a jury — must resolve factual disputes at an evidentiary hearing.
- A trial court may not defer arbitrability determinations to a jury trial.
- The three-element Seifert framework governs motions to compel arbitration in Florida: (1) valid agreement, (2) arbitrable issue, (3) no waiver.
- Electronic signatures on arbitration agreements are subject to the same evidentiary analysis as handwritten signatures.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the longstanding principle that arbitrability is a threshold legal question for the court, not a fact question for the jury. In the vehicle sales context — where arbitration clauses are common in purchase documents — the decision clarifies that dealerships are entitled to a judicial determination of agreement validity at the evidentiary hearing stage, even when the consumer disputes having agreed. The practical effect is that trial courts cannot use the existence of factual disputes as a reason to deny arbitration without actually resolving those disputes on the evidence presented.