OANA 10002 LLC v. SOLOMON LLP (2023)

Michael Oana and Florida 10002, LLC (collectively, Oana), appeal an order that both confirms and approves an arbitration award and also authorizes the appointed receiver of Luna Partnership One, LLC, to sell the partnership's assets—246 condominium units—to Axonic Properties. To the extent the order generally confirms and approves the arbitration award, it is nonfinal and nonappealable, see Ross v. Prospectsplus!, Inc., 182 So. 3d 802, 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“[A]n order confirming an arbitration award is not the final order in such a proceeding; it must be followed by a final judgment.”); accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Oana's challenge to that portion of the order and dismiss the appeal to that extent. To the extent the order approved the sale of the partnership's assets, however, we have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii); Arzuman v. Saud, 964 So. 2d 809, 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (concluding that an order approving sale and directing a receiver to proceed with closing was reviewable as an order determining the right to immediate possession of property).

We reject Oana's argument that the order approving sale is subordinate to the arbitration award and cannot be confirmed independent of a final arbitration award, as Oana never raised this objection below. See Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005). Moreover, Oana has identified no outstanding matters concerning the sale of the assets, and an incomplete award may be validly confirmed where omitted matters are severable from and sufficiently independent of the matters determined in the order confirming the award. See Air Conditioning Equip., Inc. v. Rogers, 551 So. 2d 554, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Oana additionally argues that the trial court erred in confirming the order approving the sale because the sale relief provisions of the arbitration award did not include a prejudice analysis, which Oana claims the partnership's operating agreement required and delegated to the arbitrator. Again, this issue was not raised below and is therefore waived. See Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n, 914 So. 2d at 928. Nonetheless, this argument lacks merit as the award indicates the arbitrator did undertake a prejudice analysis. And even if the arbitrator were required to undertake a second prejudice analysis before approving sale of the assets to a third party, we cannot imagine that Oana could establish prejudice from the sale of property that he cannot afford to buy; the only conceivable prejudice on this record is that he would no longer be able to mismanage the partnership's affairs to his advantage.

Finally, Oana wholly fails to challenge the substance of the recommendation that the partnership's assets be sold to Axonic. He does not argue that there has been some misapprehension of fact or, apart from the arbitrator's asserted failure to engage in a prejudice analysis, some irregularity of procedure in any aspect of either the arbitration or the receivership. Rather, this appeal appears to be nothing more than an attempt to delay the inevitable. Thus, we affirm the trial court's order approving the arbitrator's order authorizing the sale of the partnership's assets to Axonic. We express no opinion as to any other aspect of the arbitration award.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.