Freis v. Canales

Decision Date28 April 1994
Docket NumberNo. D-4415,D-4415
Citation877 S.W.2d 283
PartiesBrad FREIS and Donna Freis, Relators, v. The Honorable Adolph CANALES, Judge, Respondent.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Jeff Kaplan, Bruce A. Budner, D. Brent Lemon, Daniel Perez, Dallas, for relators.

J. Edwin Martin, Dallas, Robert L. Russell Bush, Roger L. Hurlbut, Arlington, John M. Bara, Richard E. Schellhammer, Dallas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Relators in this original mandamus proceeding request that an order of the district court compelling binding arbitration be set aside. For reasons that follow, we conditionally grant the relief sought.

HGL, Inc. built and sold a home to Brad and Donna Freis in accordance with a contract which included a "Home Buyers Warranty". The warranty was insured by a certificate issued by National Home Insurance Company. Asserting that their home had begun to shift on its foundation, the Freis gave notice to NHIC of a claim under the warranty and filed suit against HGL and others. NHIC denied the claim. The warranty provides in pertinent part:

Should the Builder or Homebuyer(s) disagree with the Insurer's decision to deny the claim ..., the contesting party shall call for conciliation ... or an arbitration to be conducted by the American Arbitration Association...."

The Freis contend that they requested the alternative of conciliation as permitted by this provision, and that NHIC agreed. NHIC and HGL deny that the Freis requested conciliation and argue that the Freis waived any right to conciliation. In our view, however, this factual dispute is immaterial. After the Freis inquired about conciliation and NHIC responded, HGL moved the district court to order arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (1988). At first the court ordered mediation as allowed by Texas alternate dispute resolution statutes, TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE §§ 152.001-154.073. When mediation failed to resolve the parties' disputes, the court granted HGL's motion and ordered arbitration.

While courts may enforce agreements to arbitrate disputes, arbitration cannot be ordered in the absence of such an agreement. United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1352-53, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); see 9 U.S.C. § 2; Texas General Arbitration Act, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 224 (Vernon Supp.1994). Under the contract in this case, when the Freis disagreed with NHIC's decision to deny their claim, they were obliged to choose either conciliation or arbitration. They contend that they chose conciliation, but even if they did not do so, they did participate in mediation, which was the functional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
94 cases
  • Amberson v. McAllen (In re Amberson)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • November 18, 2022
    ...that a writ of mandamus is the only procedure for immediate review of a motion to compel arbitration. Id. (citing Freis v. Canales , 877 S.W.2d 283, 284 (Tex. 1994) ; Mohamed v. Auto Nation USA Corp. , 89 S.W.3d 830, 834, 838–39 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ; In re Godt , 2......
  • In re W. Dairy Transp.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 2019
    ...valid and binding arbitration agreement."). Arbitration cannot be ordered in the absence of a binding agreement. Freis v. Canales , 877 S.W.2d 283, 284 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (citing United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.......
  • Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1994
    ...would have been entitled to an appeal under federal law, but no state procedural mechanism permits such an appeal. Freis v. Canales, 877 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.1994) (per curiam). In either case the party could proceed to litigate or arbitrate the merits of his dispute and then complain on appeal ......
  • Hafer v. Mortgage
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • June 24, 2011
    ...Valero Energy Corp. v. Teco Pipeline Co., 2 S.W.3d 576, 586 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing Freis v. Canales, 877 S.W.2d 283, 284 (Tex.1994) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)); TransCore Holdings, Inc. v. Rayner, 104 S.W.3d 317, 321–23 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT