Background
The Waterfront in Naples Condominium Association hired Reynolds Ventures to provide water, mold-remediation, and restoration services after Hurricane Ian damaged the condominium complex. After billing the Association, Reynolds recorded a construction lien and sued for breach of contract, lien foreclosure, and unjust enrichment.
The parties went to nonbinding arbitration. Within 20 days of the arbitrator’s decision, the Association filed a document titled “Motion and Request for Trial De Novo,” seeking a trial de novo from the identified arbitration award on all claims. The trial court sua sponte struck the filing because it did not expressly use the phrase “notice of rejection,” unsealed the award, and entered judgment for Reynolds. The Association appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District reversed. It held that the Association’s timely filing satisfied both section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h). Although the filing did not use the precise words “notice of rejection,” its request for a trial de novo from the specified nonbinding arbitration award plainly notified Reynolds that the Association refused to accept that award.
The court rejected a “magic-words” interpretation of Rule 1.820(h). It distinguished cases concerning substantial compliance based on conduct or other filings, explaining that this case involved a timely document expressly filed under the statute and rule. The court certified conflict with decisions from the Third and Fourth Districts requiring an express notice of rejection in addition to a trial-de-novo request.
Key Takeaways
- A timely request for a trial de novo that identifies and challenges the arbitration award can constitute the required notice of rejection under Rule 1.820(h).
- Rule 1.820(h) does not require the exact phrase “notice of rejection” or impose a magic-words test.
- The trial court erred by striking the Association’s filing and entering judgment on the nonbinding arbitration award.
Why It Matters
The decision creates an express interdistrict conflict over amended Rule 1.820(h). In the Sixth District, courts must read a timely trial-de-novo filing for its substance rather than deny a merits trial solely because the filing omits prescribed wording.
The case also preserves the statutory right to a trial de novo where the timely filing reasonably conveys rejection of a nonbinding arbitration decision.