law-arbitration | ADR cases case law | law-arbitration-non-signatories | arbitration mandamus | Federal Arbitration Act FAA | Federal vs
State Arbitration Act | Preemption of the TAA by the FAA | challenging arbitration agreements | | void contracts | unconscionable |
unenforceable contractual provisions | arbitration clauses | petitions applications to confirm arbitration awards | arbitration of workplace
injury claims | waiver of right to enforce arbitration agreement |
Texas Supreme Court Decisions involving disputes over arbitration
In Re SCI, No. 10-0155 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(per curiam opinion)(arbitration, procedure to select arbitrator)
This mandamus proceeding arises from an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The parties entered into
a contract for interment rights and services. The contract obligated the parties to arbitrate this dispute over the care and maintenance of
the cemetery.
The arbitration agreement provides that an arbitrator would either be selected by mutual agreement of the parties or appointed by the
American Arbitration Association (AAA). The parties failed to agree to an arbitrator and the trial court appointed an arbitrator without
allowing a reasonable opportunity to procure an appointment by AAA. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and
conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
We conclude that the contract is not ambiguous on this point. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the contract requires that they
use AAA to appoint the arbitrator.
IN RE SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL AND SCI TEXAS FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A MAGIC VALLEY MEMORIAL
GARDENS; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-09-00681-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-17-10) stay order issued March 12, 2010, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the writ of
mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
Links to Electronic Briefs in this case 10-0155 IN RE SERVICE CORP. INT'L
In re Service Corp. Inc., No. 10-0158 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(per curiam opinion)
(appointment of arbitrator based on agreement on method, rather than selection by the trial court judge) (mandamus granted)
IN RE SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL AND SCI TEXAS FUNERAL SERVICES, INC., JOINTLY D/B/A MONT META
MEMORIAL GARDENS; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-10-00026-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-23-10)
Norma Sandoval and her sister, Nora Martinez, jointly filed suit against Service Corporation
International (SCI) alleging fraud, deceptive trade practices, and other tort claims arising from their respective interment rights and
services contracts for family burial plots at Mont Meta Memorial Park.1 The parties agree the dispute was required to be arbitrated
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16.
SCI asserts that the trial court’s appointment of an arbitrator interfered with the contractual rights of the parties and was not authorized
by the Federal Arbitration Act. Without reaching the parties’ arguments as to which party or parties have the burden of approaching the
AAA to appoint an arbitrator, we agree with SCI that the trial court’s appointment was an abuse of discretion from which there is no
adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). In a related case also decided today,
In re Service Corp. International & SCI Tex. Funeral Services, Inc. d/b/a Magic Valley Memorial Gardens, we analyzed an identical
arbitration provision. __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. 2011). Following the rationale in Magic Valley Memorial Gardens, we conclude the trial court
abused its discretion by appointing an arbitrator instead of following the agreed-upon method of selection outlined in the contract. As a
matter of law, the two month delay in the selection of an arbitrator in this case, by itself, does not establish a lapse or failure of the
parties to avail themselves of the contractual selection method. See 9 U.S.C. § 5; Magic Valley Memorial Gardens, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex.
2011). Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant SCI’s petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to
vacate its prior order appointing David Calvillo as arbitrator. TEX. R.APP. P. 59.1, 52.8(c). We are confident the trial court will comply, and
the writ will issue only if it fails to do so.
OPINION DELIVERED: December 16, 2011
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the writ of
mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
Link to Electronic Briefs in this case 10-0158 IN RE SERVICE CORP. INT'L
Americo Life, Inc. v. Myer, No. 10-0734 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(per curiam)
(selection of arbitrators on panel, neutrality of chosen arbitrator)
This case concerns an arbitration provision that allows each party to appoint one arbitrator to a panel, subject to certain requirements. At
issue is whether Americo Life, Inc. waived its objection to the removal of the arbitrator it selected. The underlying dispute concerned the
financing mechanism for Americo’s purchase of several insurance companies from Robert Myer.1 Pursuant to the financing agreement,
Americo and Myer submitted their dispute to arbitration under American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules. The arbitrators found in favor
of Myer, and Americo filed a The court of appeals is correct that Americo did not expressly state that arbitrators were not required to be
neutral. 315 S.W.3d at 75–76. However, Americo argued that the AAA requirements did not apply, that the only applicable requirements
were that they be knowledgeable and independent businesspersons or professionals, and that Figari met these qualifications. Americo
properly preserved this argument. Therefore, without hearing oral argument, TEX. R.APP. P. 59.1, we reverse the court of appeals’
judgment and remand the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AMERICO LIFE, INC., AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, THE OHIO STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v.
ROBERT L. MYER AND STRIDER MARKETING GROUP, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-08-01053-CV, 315 SW3d 72, 10-22-
09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court
reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Per Curiam Opinion
Link to Electronic Briefs in this case: 10-0734 AMERICO LIFE, INC. v. MYER
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Perez, No. 10-0688 (Tex. May 27, 2011)(Wainwright) (arbitration, appellate review of
appointment of arbitrator)
Once more, this Court is presented with a question of the availability of judicial review of an interlocutory arbitration order. In this
consumer dispute, CMH Homes, Inc. and Adam Perez agreed to submit their claims to arbitration but could not agree on an arbitrator.
Because of this disagreement, the trial judge intervened and appointed an arbitrator to preside over their dispute. CMH Homes filed an
interlocutory appeal challenging this appointment, requesting in the alternative that its appeal be treated as a mandamus petition. The
court of appeals determined it was without jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. We agree with the court of appeals’ determination that
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.016 does not allow an interlocutory appeal of an order appointing an arbitrator.
However, under these circumstances, CMH Homes’s appeal may properly be considered as a petition for writ of mandamus. We
remand for the court of appeals to consider this appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus.
We hold that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.016 does not permit interlocutory appeal from an order appointing an
arbitrator. However, this appeal may properly be considered as a petition for writ of mandamus, as CMH Homes requested. The court of
appeals erred in dismissing CMH Homes’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CMH HOMES, INC., ET AL. v. ADAM PEREZ; from Duval County; 4th district (04-10-00259-CV, 328 SW3d 592, 07-28-10)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in 10-0688 CMH HOMES, INC. v. PEREZ
In re Rubiola, No. 09-0309 (Tex. Mar. 11, 2011)(Medina)(arbitration and non-signatories)
In this original mandamus proceeding, Relators seek to compel arbitration under an arbitration agreement they did not sign. The real
parties in interest, who are signatories to the arbitration agreement, object to arbitration and contend that Relators cannot compel
arbitration because Relators are not parties to the arbitration agreement. The trial court apparently agreed because it denied Relators’
motion to compel arbitration. The underlying arbitration agreement, however, designated certain non-signatories as parties to the
agreement.
We conclude that signatories to an arbitration agreement may identify other parties in their agreement who may enforce arbitration as
though they signed the agreement themselves. We further conclude that the underlying arbitration agreement in this case identified the
Rubiolas as parties to the agreement and that they accordingly had the right to compel arbitration. Finally, we conclude that the trial court’
s order denying arbitration is an abuse of discretion for which we conditionally grant Relators’ request for mandamus relief. Tex. R. App.
P. 52.8(c). The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to enforce the arbitration agreement.
IN RE JOSEPH CHARLES RUBIOLA, ET AL.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-09-00115-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-04-09)
stay order issued May 15, 2009, lifted
The Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs 09-0309 IN RE JOSEPH CHARLES RUBIOLA
East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co., Inc. v. Werline, No. 07-0135 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010) (Hecht)
(appealability of order ordering re-arbitration under Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA))
EAST TEXAS SALT WATER DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. v. RICHARD LEON WERLINE; from Gregg County; 6th
district (06-06-00039-CV, 209 SW3d 888, 12-18-06)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Johnson, Justice
Willett, and Justice Guzman joined. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion [pdf], in which Justice Medina and Justice Green joined. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 07-0135 EAST TEX. SALT WATER DISPOSAL, CO., INC. v. WERLINE
In Re Polymerica, LLC, No. 08-1064 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(per curiam) (arbitration mandamus granted)
IN RE POLYMERICA, LLC D/B/A GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, INC.; from El Paso County;
8th district (08-08-00070-CV, 271 SW3d 442, 11-25-08)
stay order of February 24, 2009 lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants
the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
Is the question of legal capacity of the purported party to an arb agreement a question for the arbitrator or the court?
In re Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. No. 07-0665 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Medina) (arbitration vs. litigation: legal capacity of
party to arbitration agreement, who decides the issue?)
IN RE MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC., SUCCESSOR TO MORGAN STANLEY DW, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th
district (05-07-00590-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-17-07 Opinion by the Dallas CoA)
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court [pdf], in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion.
(Justice O'Neill not sitting)
Discovery and Motion to Compel Arbitration:
In Re Houston Pipeline Co., LP, No. 08-0800 (Tex. 2009)(per curiam) (arbitration mandamus)
(discovery orders and motion to compel arbitration) (trial court ordered to rule on motion to compel arbitration, and to
lift discovery orders).
IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.; from Victoria County;
13th district (13-07-00299-CV & 13-07-00362-CV, 269 SW3d 90,
08-26-08 Opinion of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals)
stay order issued October 17, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants
the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
Workplace Injury Claims sent to Arbitration - Postinjury Waiver Restriction under Texas Law Held Not Applicable
In Re Macy's Texas, Inc., No. 08-0584 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(per curiam)(arbitration under FAA compelled by
mandamus in dispute over personal injuries sustained at work)(correct identification of employer was an issue, but
did not defeat employee's duty to arbitrate claim against "company" / employer, conclusory affidavit offered)
IN RE MACY'S TEXAS, INC.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-08-00469-CV, ___ SW3d ___, [per curiam opinion of
the San Antonio Court of Appeals denying mandamus relief] 07-23-08)
stay order issued October 10, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants
the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
Availability of Mandamus Relief When Arbitration Is Compelled:
In Re Gulf Exploration, No 07-0055 (Tex. Apr. 17, 2009)(arbitration mandamus, mandamus against order compelling
arbitration as opposed to order denying arbitration, different standards, adequacy of appeal from final judgment as
remedy to erroneous decision by the trial court on the issue of whether claim must be arbitrated)
IN RE GULF EXPLORATION, LLC, ET AL.;
from Midland County; 11th district (11-06-00244-CV, 211 SW3d 828, 11-30-06)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Scott Brister delivered the opinion of the Court.
Nonsignatories Compelled to Arbitrate Claim Against Dead Worker's Employer
In re Labatt Food Service, LP, No. 07-0419 (Tex. 2009)(Johnson)
(arbitration mandamus, arbitration of wrongful death claim by nonsignatories compelled)
IN RE LABATT FOOD SERVICE, L.P.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00312-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-16-07)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Re Next Financial Groups, Inc., No. 08-0192, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 112 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(arbitration, employment)
(arbitration securities broker's Sabine Pilot claim for wrongful termination)
IN RE NEXT FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; from Harris County;
14th district (14-08-00005-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-06-08) stay order issued March 28, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants
the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion
Forest Oil Corp v. McAllen, No. 06-0178, 268 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Willett)(arbitration agreement
enforced, commercial contact, fraudulent inducement claim barred by contractual waiver of reliance language)
FOREST OIL CORPORATION AND DANIEL B. WORDEN v. JAMES ARGYLE MCALLEN, EL RUCIO LAND AND
CATTLE COMPANY, INC., SAN JUANITO LAND PARTNERSHIP, AND MCALLEN TRUST PARTNERSHIP; from Hidalgo
County; 13th district (13-05-00419-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-15-05)
stay order issued November 2, 2007, lifted
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Brister, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina joined.
In re Poly-America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, No. 04-1049 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(O'Neill)
(arbitration in employment context, retaliatory discharge, mandamus review of order compelling arbitration, violation
of public policy, severability)
IN RE POLY-AMERICA, L.P., IND. AND D/B/A POL-TEX INTERNATIONAL, AND POLY-AMERICA GP, L.L.C.; from
Chambers County; 1st district (01-03-01055-CV, 175 SW3d 315, 09-09-04)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Brister delivered a dissenting opinion.
(Justice Willett not sitting)
Supreme Court finds right to enforce arbitration was not waived
In Re Fleetwood Homes of Texas, LP, No. 06-0943, 257 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. June 20, 2008)(per curiam) (original
proceeding) (motion to compel arbitration, no waiver found, mandamus granted)
IN RE FLEETWOOD HOMES OF TEXAS, L.P. AND FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC.; from Walker County; 10th
district (10-06-00312-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-25-06)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants
the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion
Consumer's claim of waiver rejected
In Re CitiGroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 06-0886, 258 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. May 16, 200)(per curiam)
(arbitration compelled, no waiver found)
IN RE CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. (F/K/A SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC.), CITIGROUP, INC., AND
STACY OELSEN; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-05-01430-CV, 200 S.W.3d 742, 06-28-06)
stay order issued November 21, 2006, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants
the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
Court says homeowners waived right to arbitrate and vacates large arbitration award against
builder
Perry Homes v. Cull, No. 05-0882, 258 S.W.3d 850 (Tex. May 2, 2008)(Opinion by Scott A. Brister)(arbitration award
in favor of consumers overturned; court says home owners implicitly waived right to arbitrate by their litigation
conduct)
05-0882 PERRY HOMES, A JOINT VENTURE, HOME OWNERS MULTIPLE EQUITY, INC., AND WARRANTY
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROBERT E. CULL, AND S. JANE CULL; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-04-00052-CV, 173 S.W.3d 565, 08-31-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, vacates the arbitration award, and remands the case to the trial
court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, and
Justice Medina joined, and in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined
as to parts I-V.
Justice O'Neill delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Johnson wrote an opinion concurring and dissenting in part, which was joined by Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Green
Justice Willett delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Opinion below: Perry Homes v. Cull, 02-04-00052-CV, (Tex.App.- Fort Worth, Aug 31, 2005, pet . filed)(reversed, and arbitration award for
home owners vacated)
City of Rockwall, Texas v. Hughes, No. 05-0126 246 S.W.3d 621(Tex. Jan 25, 2008) (Johnson) (annexation,
arbitration construction of statutory provision governing arbitration of municipal annexation disputes)
THE CITY OF ROCKWALL, TEXAS v. VESTER T. HUGHES, AS SOLE INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE
OF W. W. CARUTH, DECEASED; from Rockwall County; 5th district (05-04-01562-CV, 153 S.W.3d 709, 01-20-2005)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, and Justice Brister joined.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW RECENTLY DENIED BY TEX. SUP. CT.
(Court of Appeals cases involving arbitration issues)
09-0527
XTRIA LLC v. INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE ALLIANCE INCORPORATED; from Dallas County; 6th district (06-08-00073-CV, 286 SW3d 583, 05-15-09, pet.
denied Sep. 2009)(arbitration award confirmation, manifest disregard of the law by arbitrator, gross mistake as grounds for vacatur discussed)
09-0421
JESUS GREGORIO LOPEZ v. JORGE AMADO LOPEZ; from Brooks County;
4th district (04-08-00178-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-11-09, pet. denied July 2009)
(arbitration award confirmed, challenge rejected)
08-0304
ASPRI INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. v. AHMED AFEEF, MARYAM BEGUM AFEEF AND ENM FOOD MART, INC.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00249-CV,
___ SW3d ___, 02-20-08)(judgment confirming an arbitration award)
(standard of review on appeal)(landlord-tenant arbitration, arbitrating lease disputes)
This is an appeal from a trial court's judgment confirming an arbitration award. In a single issue appellant Aspri Investments, L.L.C. ("Aspri") contends the
trial court erred in awarding possession of certain real property to Ahmed Afeef, Maryam Begum Afeef, and ENM Food Mart, Inc. ("Afeef"). We affirm.
Trial courts have authority to render judgment on arbitration awards. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 171.081, 171.092 (Vernon 2005). "Unless
grounds are offered for vacating, modifying, or correcting an award under Section 171.088 or 171.091, the court, on application of a party, shall confirm
the award." Id. § 171.087. Aspri claims Afeef made no demand for possession in the arbitration proceeding. Accordingly, possession was not an issue before
the arbitrator and he was barred from making any such award.
We review a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award de novo. GJR Mgmt. Holdings, L.P. v. Jack Raus, Ltd., 126 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. App.-San
Antonio 2003, pet. denied). The trial court, on the other hand, must review an arbitrator's award with great deference. See Crossmark, Inc. v. Hazar, 124 S.W.
3d 422, 429 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). The thrust of Aspri's complaint is that the trial court misinterpreted the arbitrator's award, awarding relief to
Afeef that was beyond that awarded by the arbitrator. We disagree.
The trial court's judgment awarding possession is in conformance with the arbitrator's award. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 171.087 (Vernon
2005). Conclusion: We overrule Aspri's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
08-0276
DANIEL ROEHRS, ET AL. v. FSI HOLDINGS, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-01432-CV, 246 SW3d 796, 02-26-08) 2 petitions
Appellee FSI Holdings, Inc. (“FSI”) arbitrated a dispute with appellants. A three-arbitrator panel awarded FSI roughly $576,000 against appellants Roehrs
and McGrath, awarded FSI nothing on its claims against the other four appellants, and awarded no attorneys' fees. FSI then sought judicial confirmation of
its award, which the trial court granted. Appellants Roehrs and McGrath complain about the entry of judgment against them. The other appellants complain
that the trial court did not award them their attorneys' fees despite their prevailing in the arbitration. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings.
07-1008
HERITAGE OAKS WEST RETIREMENT VILLAGE, ET AL. v. EUGENIA GINGER SIKES, ET AL.; from Navarro County; 10th district (10-06-00176-CV, 238
SW3d 807, 09-26-07, pet. denied April 2008)(arbitration award challenge) Having found there is no valid agreement to arbitrate, we reverse the judgment of
the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The wife and children of decedent Joel Sikes[1] filed wrongful death and survival claims against Heritage Oaks West Retirement Village and others[2]
alleging malpractice in his treatment.
The Sikeses appeal the trial court’s judgment on an arbitration award. They first complain that the Dispute Resolution Plan is unenforceable because: 1) it
does not comply with former article 4590i; 2) Heritage failed to sign the agreement; 3) the wrongful death claims are not within the scope of the agreement;
4) Eugenia Sikes lacked authority to sign the agreement on behalf of her husband; 5) the agreed order to arbitrate was both revoked and superseded; and 6)
Heritage failed to negate the Sikeses’ contractual defenses to arbitration. In the alternative, the Sikeses contend that the judgment on the arbitrator’s
decision is in error because: 1) under federal law, the arbitrator’s decision failed to adjudicate all claims and reflected a manifest disregard of the law; and
2) under state law, the decision resulted from a gross mistake and a failure to execute an honest judgment. We will reverse and remand.
07-0600
JACKIE TEEL v. BELDON ROOFING & REMODELING CO., D/B/A BELDON ROOFING COMPANY, AND STEVE PHILLIPS; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-
06-00231-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-25-07, pet. denied Jan 2008) (arbitration) Jackie Teel appeals the trial court's order compelling arbitration; alternatively
Teel challenges the arbitrator's decision under the Federal Arbitration Act. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
06-1106
GRAND HOMES 96, L.P. & GRAND HOMES, INC. v. DAVID & DEBRA LOUDERMILK; from Denton County; 2nd district (02-06-00030-CV, 208 S.W.3d 696, 11-
09-06, pet. denied May 2, 2008)(arbitration award appeal, waiver issue)
This is an appeal from the confirmation of an arbitration award. The primary issue we address is whether the trial court abused its discretion by compelling
binding arbitration between all of the parties over the objection of two of the defendants- now Appellants - Grand Homes 96, L.P. and Grand Homes, Inc.
Appellants claim that they did not receive notice that arbitration could be compelled concerning the claims of Appellees David and Debra Loudermilk
against them and that this lack of notice prevented them from raising the defense of waiver. Because Appellants either were not deprived of the
opportunity to present their waiver defense to the arbitrator or as a matter of law cannot establish the Loudermilks' waiver of arbitration, we hold that the trial
court did not err by compelling arbitration over Appellants' objection. Because there is no record from the arbitration proceedings, Appellants' other
challenges to the arbitration award fail. Consequently, we will affirm.
07-1008
HERITAGE OAKS WEST RETIREMENT VILLAGE, ET AL. v. EUGENIA GINGER SIKES, ET AL.; from Navarro County; 10th district (10-06-00176-CV, 238
SW3d 807, 09-26-07, pet. denied April 2008)(arbitration award challenge) Having found there is no valid agreement to arbitrate, we reverse the judgment of
the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
06-0266
JNC PARTNERS DENTON, LLC v. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; from Denton County; 2nd district
(02-05-00439-CV, 190 SW3d 790, 03-23-06, pet. denied Feb. 2008) stay order issued April 6, 2006, lifted
(temporary injunction appeal, city annexation plan, arbitration)
Appellant JNC Partners Denton, LLC appeals from the trial court's denial of its request for a temporary injunction enjoining Appellee City of Denton from
annexing JNC's property. The underlying issue is whether JNC has shown a probable right to compel arbitration under section 43.052(i) of the local
government code. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 43.052(i) (Vernon Supp. 2005). We affirm the trial court's order denying the temporary injunction.
JNC presented no evidence that tended to show that Denton proposed to annex two or more areas as described in section 43.052(h). Thus, JNC failed to
prove a probable right to arbitration under section 43.052(i). We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying JNC's request for a
temporary injunction.
07-0644
DIAMOND OFFSHORE COMPANY, DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING SERVICES, INC., DIAMOND OFFSHORE (USA) L.L.C., AND DIAMOND OFFSHORE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. DONNIE HALL; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-06-00272-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-17-07, pet. denied Jan 2008) (Justice
Medina not sitting)
Appellants assert that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to vacate an arbitration award and that, therefore, the trial court improperly dismissed
this case for want of jurisdiction. We affirm.
07-0794
SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST v. BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY LP; from Harris County; 1st district (01-06-00485-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 08-16-07, pet denied Jan 2008) (arbitration)
Appellant challenges the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of appellee, San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the "Trust"), confirming a portion of an
arbitration award in favor of the Trust and ordering that the Trust recover from Burlington damages in the amount of $6,019,370, plus interest, for a total
disputed award of $6,243,990. In its first issue, Burlington contends that the parties did not agree, by clear and unmistakable language, to submit questions
regarding the scope of arbitrable issues to the arbitrator. In its second issue, Burlington contends that "construing the scope of the arbitration agreement de
novo," the parties' dispute is not within the scope of the arbitration agreement. We reverse and render in part and remand in part.
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams | Texas Caselaw Topics
Pages | Texas Opinions Homepage |