Ehresman v. Bultynck & Co., P.C., Docket No. 140452
| Citation | 511 N.W.2d 724,203 Mich.App. 350 |
| Decision Date | 19 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 140452 |
| Parties | , 9 IER Cases 441 Donald L. EHRESMAN and Steven C. Nickol, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BULTYNCK & COMPANY, P.C., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Cox & Hodgman by Berry L. King, Troy, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Condit, McGarry & Schloff, P.C. by Alexander B. McGarry, Bloomfield Hills, for defendant-appellee.
Before MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and HOOD and THOMAS, * JJ.
Plaintiffs, Donald Ehresman and Steven Nickol, appeal as of right from a circuit court order granting defendant's request for judgment on an arbitration award. Plaintiff Nickol appeals the order only insofar as it implements that portion of the arbitration decision that holds each plaintiff jointly and severally liable, whereas plaintiff Ehresman raises not only that issue, but also the issue whether he was bound by the arbitration clauses contained in the various agreements between the parties.
Plaintiffs were employed as public accountants by defendant Bultynck & Company, P.C. Each purchased stock in Bultynck and became a principal in the firm. As a condition of becoming a shareholder, defendant required that each plaintiff agree to three contracts: an employment agreement, a stock redemption agreement, and a deferred compensation plan agreement. The stock redemption and employment agreements required arbitration of any disputes arising under their terms. Moreover, the stock redemption agreement also included a covenant not to compete. Nickol signed the agreements and does not challenge the arbitration clauses. Ehresman did not sign the agreements and urges that, ipso facto, they have no binding effect on him.
In November of 1989, plaintiffs resigned from their positions with defendant Bultynck, taking a number of defendant's clients with them. As a result of the breach of the terms of the stock redemption agreement, defendant filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. Subsequently, Ehresman asked the circuit court to enjoin the scheduled arbitration hearings. The court refused to do so. Thereafter, the arbitrators found that the three agreements, including the covenant not to compete contained in the stock redemption agreement, were valid with respect to each plaintiff, awarded defendant damages, and held that plaintiffs were jointly and severally liable for those damages. The trial court then entered judgment on the arbitration award pursuant to MCR 3.602(L).
Plaintiff Ehresman argues that the arbitration provisions in the stock redemption and employment agreements were not binding because he never signed either of the contracts. Therefore, plaintiff argues, the trial court erred in enforcing the arbitration award against him. We disagree.
The trial court found that Ehresman had taken The court also found that Ehresman had "not denied that he intended to be bound by the contracts, and it is clear from the evidence presented that he and defendant did intend to be bound by them, such intent being unequivocally manifested by their conduct both during their professional association and afterward." Plaintiff Ehresman does not challenge these findings of fact, rather he argues that the statutory provision requiring that the arbitration agreement be in writing is not met unless the party resisting arbitration has signed the agreement.
Michigan law provides that a person may agree to submit a dispute to arbitration:
All persons, except infants and persons of unsound mind, may, by an instrument in writing, submit to the decision of 1 or more arbitrators, any controversy existing between them, which might be the subject of civil action, except as herein otherwise provided, and may, in such submission, agree that a judgment of any circuit court shall be rendered upon the award made pursuant to such submission. [M.C.L. § 600.5001(1); M.S.A. § 27A.5001(1); emphasis supplied.]
Arbitration is a matter of contract, and a party cannot be forced to submit to arbitration in the absence of an agreement to do so. Arrow Overall Supply Co. v. Peloquin Enterprises, 414 Mich. 95, 99, 323 N.W.2d 1 (1982). The existence of a contract to arbitrate and its enforceability is a judicial question. Id. at 98, 323 N.W.2d 1; Huntington Woods v. Ajax Paving Industries (After Remand), 196 Mich.App. 71, 74, 492 N.W.2d 463 (1992).
Although M.C.L. § 600.5001(1); M.S.A. § 27A.5001(1) requires that an arbitration agreement be in writing, the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dan Wiebold Ford v. Universal Computer
...agreements must be in writing, but there is no requirement that they be signed by either or both parties. Ehresman v. Bultynck & Co., P.C., 203 Mich.App. 350, 511 N.W.2d 724 (1994). The district court correctly noted that Dan Wiebold's "claims against Defendants UC Services, UC Systems, and......
-
Hergenreder v. Bickford Senior Living Group Llc
...with reasonable notification of the employment guidelines.” Id. (internal citation omitted). See also Ehresman v. Bultynck & Co., P.C., 203 Mich.App. 350, 511 N.W.2d 724, 726 (1994) (holding that Ehresman assented to an arbitration agreement, even though he did not sign the agreement, becau......
-
Agar Truck Sales, Inc. v. Daimler Trucks N. Am., LLC
...precedent to its becoming a binding contract usually depends on the intentions of the parties." Ehresman v. Bultynck & Co., 203 Mich. App. 350, 354, 511 N.W.2d 724, 726 (1994) (emphasis added). Plaintiff asserts that courts determine whether parties have mutually assented using an objective......
-
Hickerson v. Pool Corp.
...Inc. v. Objectwin Tech., Inc., No. 7:06CV00372, 2007 WL 2746958, at *4 (W.D. Va. Sept. 20,2007); see also Ehresman v. Bultynck & Co., P.C., 511 N.W.2d 724, 726 (Mich. App. 1994) (citations omitted) ("where mutuality of assent is established, written arbitration agreements do not have to be ......