City of Alamo v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 09 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-93-602-CV,13-93-602-CV |
| Citation | 878 S.W.2d 664 |
| Parties | CITY OF ALAMO, et al., Appellants, v. Raul E. GARCIA and R.E. Garcia and Associates, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ronald G. Hole, Law Offices of Ronald G. Hole, John R. Griffith, Thornton, Summers, Biechlin & Dunham, McAllen, for appellants.
Frank E. Perez, Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, Brownsville, for appellees.
Before DORSEY, FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, Jr. and YANEZ, JJ.
The City of Alamo files this interlocutory appeal from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration. We affirm.
This controversy arises out of a contract between the City of Alamo and R.E. Garcia & Associates. Garcia sued Alamo in January 1992, claiming that it breached its contract and that the manner in which it did created liability in tort. The tort damages are based on theories of tortious interference with an existing contract, violations of the Texas Election Code, libel or slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light, and that such actions were intentional or malicious.
Alamo filed a Motion to Enforce Arbitration in January 1993. The hearing was held in September 1993 after which the court entered the order denying arbitration. The order stated "this Court is of the opinion that the City of Alamo has waived its right to compel arbitration or is otherwise not entitled to arbitration." We will uphold the order if it is proper on any basis considered by the trial court. See Wetzel v. Sullivan, King & Sabom, P.C., 745 S.W.2d 78, 81 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ).
At the hearing Garcia attacked Alamo's right to arbitration on the following grounds: 1) the demand for arbitration was untimely according to the terms of the contract; 2) Alamo waived its right to arbitration; and 3) Alamo had not satisfied the conditions in the contract to invoke arbitration. The court did not file findings of fact and conclusions of law, nor was it requested to do so.
If parties to an agreement wish to have disputes arising under the agreement arbitrated, they may so provide. In the absence of such an agreement, there is generally no duty to arbitrate. A written agreement to arbitrate a dispute or a provision in a written contract to submit any disputes to arbitration is enforceable. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 224 (Vernon Supp.1994). However, a court may not compel arbitration in the absence of such an agreement. Freis v. Canales, 877 S.W.2d 283 (1994). Arbitration is a creature of contract and a clause requiring arbitration will be interpreted under contract principles. When a party seeks to compel arbitration, he must first establish his right to that remedy under the contract. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Tucker, 806 S.W.2d 914, 920 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1991, writ dism'd w.o.j.).
The contract involved here provides for arbitration of all claims under the contract, but also requires:
Notice of demand for arbitration must be filed in writing with the other parties to this agreement and with the American Arbitration Association. The demand must be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen.
Exhibit A to the contract also contains an arbitration provision that, among other matters, addresses how a demand for arbitration will be made:
Either party may invoke this provision for arbitration by giving the other party notice in writing demanding that such controversy be submitted to arbitration, which notice shall also contain the appointment of an arbitrator by the demanding party.
Additionally, the contract limited the authority of the arbitrators to amounts in controversy of less than $200,000.
The agreement to arbitrate required (1) written notice (2) to be given within a reasonable time (3) to the other party. The agreement also required that the demanding party appoint an arbitrator in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perlstein v. D. Steller 3, Ltd.
...thus, when a party seeks to compel arbitration, he must first establish his right to that remedy under contract. City of Alamo v. Garcia, 878 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ). In Texas, courts favor arbitration agreements, and any doubts regarding the scope of an arbi......
-
J.M. Davidson Inc. v. Webster
...Constructors, Inc. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Co., 896 S.W.2d 352, 356-57 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ);City of Alamo v. Garcia, 878 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1994, no writ). The Federal Arbitration Act and the Texas Arbitration Act both provide that a contr......
-
City of Lubbock v. Hancock
...the court found that there was no additional right to arbitration. Id. In support of its position, the City also cites City of Alamo v. Garcia, 878 S.W.2d 664, 666 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1994, no writ), and Belmont v. Lyondell Petrochemical, 896 S.W.2d 352, 357 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Di......
-
Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, L.L.P. v. Lopez (In re Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, L.L.P.)
...arbitration); In re H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 17 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, orig. proceeding); City of Alamo v. Garcia, 878 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ). Lopez raised several affirmative defenses to arbitration. Specifically, Lopez asserts, ......