OA on Civil Rule 1.820 Nonbinding Arb 10/8

The Supreme Court of Florida has scheduled oral argument for October 8, 2026 in a pending civil procedure rules case following submission and comment period on The Florida Bar Civil Procedure Rules Committee's proposed amendments regarding outcome of cases under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820. The standing Civil Rules Committee of The Florida Bar seeks to amend Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 after confusion arising from People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 413 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) where the Fourth District Court of Appeal interpreted nonbinding arbitration notice language as requiring a party to state both that it was “rejecting” the arbitration decision and that it was “requesting a trial” in the written filing. In Hernandez, while the party filed a request for trial de novo, the request did not include language that the party was “rejecting” the arbitration award. The court said the request for trial de novo did not strictly comply with Rule 1.820 (h) and was therefore ineffective. When the Civil Rules Committee last proposed amending Rule 1.820, it was not their intention to create a requirement to use “magic words” to reject an arbitration award-- it was to create a requirement that a request for trial de novo be accomplished by a written filing. Members of the committee now agree that it is duplicative and unnecessary for a party to say both that the arbitration award is being rejected and that a trial de novo is being requested. Rather, it is implicit that a request for a trial de novo is a rejection of the arbitration award. There was also a concern that Article I, Section 22 of the Florida Constitution states “[t]he right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate” and a procedural rule should not invade that right by creating a trap for the unwary. To address the Hernandez decision’s interpretation, Civil Rules proposes amending subdivision (h) to clarify that only a written request for trial need be filed; the filing does not have to be a “notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial.” Just decided by the 6th DCA while this change is pending was a similar case, The Waterfront in Naples Condominium Association, Inc. v. Reynolds, Consolidated Case Nos. 6D2025-0624, 6D2025-0623 on August 21, 2026. In that opinion, the court found the goal of interpretation is to arrive at a fair reading of the rule text on the basis of how a reasobable reader would understand it at the time of issue. They declined a magic words test, such that a timely filed document (not a specific form) served as enough notice required for the trial court to conclude the award was rejected because a trial de novo was requested in compliance with the statute, FS 44.103. See official rules amendment petition case pending before the Florida Supreme Court docketed here-- https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/case/14463DCF-4E3D-428D-B801-B5BC1DC7570A and case that brought about the need for clarification-- https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/fourth-district-court-of-appeal/2025/4d2024-3274.html and most recent case from which a conflict was certified-- https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2494192/opinion/Opinion_2025-0623.pdf

NBA in FLA

Some practitioners did not take note of the change last summer that rejecting a nonbinding arbitration award went from filing for trial de novo to requiring including notice requesting rejection. Effective July 1, 2024, amended rule 1.820(h) requires a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial. This was done to to clarify the process for rejecting an arbitrator’s decision and requesting a trial de novo. Under the amended rule, an arbitration decision is deemed rejected only if such request is filed with the court within 20 days of service of the arbitrator’s written decision. See In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 386 So. 3d 876, 878 (Fla. 2024). In a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal case, it was held that a request for trial de novo, which does not also include a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision, does not comply with amended rule 1.820(h). If a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial is not timely made, the decision must be referred to the presiding judge, who must enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by Section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/2rbdjdes