Summary
finding that “whether conditions precedent to arbitration were fulfilled ... is a question for the arbitrator”
Summary of this case from Cox v. Vill. of TequestaOpinion
Case No. 97-2341
Opinion filed January 28, 1998 JANUARY TERM 1998
Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kathleen Kroll, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. CL 96-8876 AG CL 97-373 AJ.
William G. Shofstall, Jr. of The Law Office of William G. Shofstall, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jack J. Aiello and Kurt E. Lee of Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant challenges an order which required her to arbitrate her claims with appellees Fine and JAR, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company. JAR had entered into an agreement to buy appellant's stock in Cooper Academy of Court Reporting, Inc. Fine had guaranteed a promissory note in connection with the transaction. We reverse the order requiring appellant to arbitrate with Fine, as there was no arbitration provision in the promissory note or guaranty signed by Fine. We affirm the order requiring arbitration with JAR. Although appellant claims she is entitled to litigate the question of whether conditions precedent to arbitration were fulfilled, that issue is a question for the arbitrator. See Executive Life Ins. Co. v. John Hammer Assocs., Inc., 569 So.2d 855, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.