Full Opinion

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT COLLIER CONDOMINIUM ) MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida ) Corporation; AMY BLACKBURN, ) and EDWARD B. BLACKBURN, III, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-129 ) WILLIAM F. FORESMAN, WILLIAM ) BRADLEY FORESMAN, and NAPLES ) CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT, INC., ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed June 5, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Elizabeth V. Krier, Judge. Douglas L. Rankin, Naples, for Appellants. Forrest L. Andrews, of Lydecker Diaz, Miami, for Appellee, William F. Foresman. No appearance for Appellees, William Bradley Foreman, and Naples Condominium Management, Inc. SMITH, Judge. This is an appeal from the trial court's order adopting the general magistrate's report and recommendations and granting the motion to dismiss, which included a simultaneous motion to compel arbitration, filed by appellees, William F. Foresman, William Bradley Foresman, and Naples Condominium Management, Inc. Because the trial court's order cannot be reconciled, on this record, with the magistrate's report and recommendation, we reverse and remand. The record reveals a conflict, which is apparent on the face of the record, between the magistrate's report and recommendation and the trial court's order. The magistrate's report and recommendation recommends as follows: counts one and two of the third amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice; counts three, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven be dismissed with leave to amend; counts four, five, and six stand as pleaded; and the appellees' request for arbitration be denied. After a hearing on the parties' respective exceptions to the magistrate's report and recommendations, the trial court rendered its order adopting the magistrate's report and recommendations and granting the appellees' motion to dismiss. However, the order does not address the issue of arbitration and appears to grant the appellees' motion to dismiss in its entirety.1 Because the order is internally inconsistent and conflicts with the magistrate's report and recommendations, which it expressly adopts, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resolve these conflicts. See J. Sourini Painting, Inc. v. Johnson Paints, Inc., 809 So. 2d 95, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("[B]ecause the trial court's findings are contradictory and its legal conclusions inconsistent, we vacate the judgment and the 1We note that, surprisingly, neither party sought clarification from the trial court regarding these glaring inconsistencies in the order. -2- order and remand for a new trial on all issues."); Mitchell v. XO Commc'ns., 966 So. 2d 489, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. -3-