Background
The Waterfront in Naples Condominium Association hired Reynolds Ventures to perform water, mold-remediation, and restoration work after Hurricane Ian. After the association declined to pay Reynolds’s final invoice, Reynolds sued for breach of contract, construction-lien foreclosure, and unjust enrichment.
The parties went to nonbinding arbitration. Twenty days after 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 nonbinding arbitration award as to all claims. The circuit court, acting sua sponte, concluded that the filing did not comply with the amended version of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h) because it did not expressly use the phrase “notice of rejection,” unsealed the award, and entered judgment consistent with it.
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 Rule 1.820(h). Although the filing did not use the exact words “notice of rejection,” its request for a trial de novo from the specified arbitration award plainly notified Reynolds that the association would not accept that award.
The court rejected a “magic-words” reading of the rule. It distinguished substantial-compliance cases based on parties’ conduct or other filings: here, the association timely filed the document required by the statute and rule, and the document itself supplied notice of rejection and requested trial. The court reversed the final judgment confirming the award and remanded for a trial on the merits, while certifying conflict with decisions from the Third and Fourth Districts.
Key Takeaways
- A timely request for 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 impose a magic-words requirement that the filing expressly say “notice of rejection.”
- The decision conflicts with the Third and Fourth Districts’ stricter readings of the amended rule.
Why It Matters
The decision creates an express interdistrict conflict over how strictly courts should enforce amended Rule 1.820(h) after nonbinding arbitration. In the Sixth District, the substance of a timely filed request for trial controls where it clearly communicates rejection of the award.