Material Handling Systems, Inc. v. United Granite Penna, LLC

── Material Handling Systems, Inc. v. United Granite Penna, LLC ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. UNITED GRANITE PENNA, LLC, and UNITED GRANITE & QUARTZ, INC., Appellees. No. 4D2025-1187 [May 20, 2026] Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Steven Peter DeLuca, Judge; L.T. Case No. 062024CC018104AXXXNO. Alan Lester Raines and Elizabeth Jimenez of Raines Legal, Boca Raton, for appellant. Lauren Yevich and Harold Douglas Holder, III, of Bush Ross, P.A., Tampa, for appellees. FORST, J. Appellant Material Handling Systems, Inc. (“MHS”) appeals from the county court’s denial of MHS’s petition to be granted its attorney’s fees arising from an arbitration. We affirm because the record shows the arbitrator was presented with multiple requests for attorney’s fees and made a discretionary decision not to award MHS’s attorney’s fees. Background In 2022, MHS entered into two separate contracts with United Granite Penna, LLC, and United Granite & Quartz, Inc. (“Appellees”). Both contracts provided that “any and all disputes between the parties shall be arbitrated before the American Arbitration Association” and that “[c]ustomer shall pay to Material Handling all reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by Material Handling[.]” Accordingly, when the contracts were breached, MHS filed a statement of claim with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), including a request for attorney’s fees.  Each of MHS’s submissions to the arbitrator, including its final hearing memorandum, contained a request for attorney’s fees. The arbitration hearings were not transcribed. The final arbitration award was in MHS’s favor but did not mention attorney’s fees. The award’s last paragraph stated that it was “in full settlement of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration” and that “[a]ll claims not expressly granted herein are hereby, denied.” As for other fees, the award stated that “[t]he administrative fees . . . shall be borne as incurred.” Appellees timely satisfied the award. One month after the award’s issuance, MHS brought the underlying action to the county court, petitioning to be awarded attorney’s fees arising from the arbitration. The county court denied MHS’s petition and granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss MHS’s petition. MHS filed a motion for rehearing, which the county court denied. This appeal follows. Analysis “The trial court’s decision to confirm or vacate the arbitration award is reviewed for an abuse of extremely limited discretion.” Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 888 So. 2d 96, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). MHS’s main contention is that section 682.11, Florida Statutes (2022), requires a trial court to decide the issue of attorney’s fees in connection with an arbitration award and an arbitrator cannot decide that issue unless the parties waive this statutory right. However, in 2013, the Florida Legislature amended that section to allow arbitrators to award attorney’s fees “if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim or by the agreement of the parties to the arbitration proceeding.” § 682.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2022). MHS is correct that, before the 2013 amendment, we held that for an arbitrator to be able to decide attorney’s fees, the parties had to expressly waive their right to have a court determine that issue, and such express waiver required more than mere requests for attorney’s fees in the parties’ submissions to the arbitrator. Compare Appelbaum v. Fayerman, 937 So. 2d 282, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (a pre-statutory amendment opinion holding the record must