Opinion
Case No. 2D06-1665.
Opinion filed February 16, 2007.
Appeal from nonfinal order of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ralph C. Stoddard, Judge.
David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte Gilbert, P.A., Tampa; and J. Daniel Clark of Clark Martino, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.
Michael D. Siegel of Delcamp Siegel, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
Morris and Yvette Lopez challenge the trial court's nonfinal order compelling them to arbitrate their dispute with Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. (Ernie Haire). They assert that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. Additionally, the Lopezes argue that Ernie Haire waived its right to arbitrate, and that they did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their jury trial right. The trial court did not rule on these last two issues. We have jurisdiction. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). We limit our review to the issue ruled upon by the trial court-the absence of unconscionability. See Miller v. Miller, 709 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that an appellate court cannot address an issue not ruled upon by the trial court). We affirm.
In early 1999, the parties entered into an automobile lease agreement. Allegedly, the parties agreed that the Lopezes would not be responsible for excess mileage charges. Four years later, upon expiration of the lease, Ernie Haire sought to collect such charges from the Lopezes. Ernie Haire's copy of the lease provided for excessive wear charges of fifteen cents per mile over 15,000 miles per year. Believing that Ernie Haire altered the lease documents, the Lopezes sued under various theories. Ernie Haire moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement in the lease. Finding no procedural unconscionability in the execution of the lease, the trial court granted the motion.
Arbitration is mandated when (1) there is a valid written agreement to arbitrate, (2) there is an arbitrable issue, and (3) the right to arbitrate was not waived. See Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla. 1999); Bland v. Health Care Ret. Corp. of Am., 927 So. 2d 252, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We review the trial court's factual findings under a competent, substantial evidence standard and its application of the law to the facts de novo. See Bland, 927 So. 2d at 255.
Paragraph thirty of the lease provides, with limited exceptions inapplicable here, that any unresolved dispute between the parties shall be submitted to arbitration. Mr. Lopez initialed paragraph thirty, confirming that he read, understood, and agreed to the arbitration terms.
Procedural unconscionability relates to the manner in which a contract is made and involves consideration of issues such as the relative bargaining power of the parties and their ability to know and understand the disputed contract terms. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259, 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Our record demonstrates that the Lopezes successfully negotiated the mileage terms that they say were in the lease. We cannot say that they lacked bargaining power. Further, Mr. Lopez signed the lease and initialed the arbitration provision. Although he chose not to read some portions of the lease, he cannot defeat enforcement of a written contract on the ground that he signed it without reading it. See Kinko's, Inc. v. Payne, 901 So. 2d 354, 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp. v. Wilson, 877 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Sabin v. Lowe's of Fla., Inc., 404 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) ("A party has a duty to learn and know the contents of a proposed contract before he signs and delivers it and is presumed to know and understand its contents, terms and conditions."). Finding no procedural unconscionability, the trial court properly ended its inquiry about unconscionability and compelled arbitration. See Petsch, 872 So. 2d at 265; Bland, 927 So. 2d at 257.
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.