decision to request a trial de novo. See Furia v. Ziccarelli, 935 So.2d 103, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The Appellees assert that applying the five-day extension of time in rule 1.090(e) contravenes the express intent of section 44.103(5) and rule 1.820(h) that a party’s right to trial de novo be forfeited if the party fails to make a request within twenty days of service of the arbitration decision. The Appellees argue that Florida courts have consistently held that upon expiration of the twenty-day time period enforcement of the arbitration award is mandatory. We are not persuaded by these arguments because neither section 44.103(5) nor rule 1.820(h) provides that rule 1.090(e) does not apply. See Volksbank Regensburg eG v. Burger, 703 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Appellees have not cited to any
holding that exclusionary rule does not extend to proceedings other than criminal trials holding that the discovery rule does not apply to  bill of review claims to set aside probate judgments holding that rule 1090e applies to extend the time period for objecting to the recording of a foreign judgment set forth in section 55604 florida statutes 1995 because section 55604 does not contain language specifying that rule 1090e does not apply holding that rule b attachment does not extend to afteracquired property holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government