On January 7, 2026, Friedman Legal secured a victory for its client when the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida issued a written opinion in its favor and found that there was no binding arbitration agreement between a subcontractor and a surety on a lien transfer bond.
Friedman Legal’s client had performed plumbing work on a project in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, pursuant to a subcontract that had an arbitration provision that could only be triggered at the election of the contractor. After a period of nonpayment, Friedman Legal’s client filed a lien against the project and a surety subsequently issued a lien transfer bond. After Friedman Legal filed suit to foreclose on the lien, on behalf of its client, the surety attempted to trigger the arbitration provisions of the underlying subcontract. The lower court agreed with the surety and Friedman Legal appealed this decision.
After an appellate process spearheaded by Friedman Legal’s Nicole Moss, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a written opinion and reversed the lower court’s decision. Therein, the Court found that the surety had failed to meet any of the requirements to compel arbitration and that the lower court had erred in compelling arbitration. The Court commented, “In this case, the transfer lien bond is the subject of the litigation. The defendant is the surety to the lien transfer bond. Sureties cannot exercise unilateral election rights that are reserved for the principal of the underlying contract.”
The case is now proceeding in Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, where it was originally filed.
Nicole Moss stated, “While arbitration has its place as a dispute resolution mechanism, we were confident in our position that the arbitration clause in this matter did not apply to this lien transfer bond surety. The appellate decision was a victory for our client, and for all principals on lien transfer bonds that have the right to litigate their bond claims in the county in which the project is located.”
You can read the Court’s issued opinion here.
