GBR3, the defendant below, appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to compel arbitration pursuant to a contract provision. For the following reasons, we reverse.1
GBR3 contracted with appellee Largo, a contractor, to construct two warehouse additions to its property. The contract contained an arbitration clause. Largo filed suit against GBR3, claiming wrongful termination and breach of contract. Largo claims it agreed to enter into settlement negotiations with GBR3 on the condition that GBR3 first file its answer and counterclaim. GBR3 claims it agreed only to send Largo a draft, not to actually file it. The parties proceeded to negotiate a settlement, but they failed to reach an agreement. Largo’s counsel then sought to depose GBR3’s corporate representative, and GBR3 moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, finding that based on GBR3’s actions throughout the litigation (furnishing Largo with a draft answer and counterclaim), GBR3 waived its right to arbitration. GBR3 appeals.
The trial court erred in finding that GBR3 waived arbitration. “All ques*724tions concerning the scope or waiver of the right to arbitrate under contracts should be resolved in favor of arbitration rather than against it.” Beverly Hills Dev. Corp. v. George Wimpey of Florida, Inc., 661 So.2d 969, 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The only record activity in which GBR3 participated was the filing of its Notice of Enlargement of Time to Respond to the Complaint and its Motion to Compel Arbitration. Neither of those filings is inconsistent with the actions of a party seeking to invoke its contractual right to arbitration. See Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Adams, 791 So.2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Hough v. JKP Development, Inc., 654 So.2d 1241, 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).2
REVERSED AND REMANDED.