Grayiel v. Appalachian Energy Partners 2001–D, LLP
Decision Date | 15 November 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 11–0371.,11–0371. |
Parties | George A. GRAYIEL, Jr., Plaintiff Below, Petitioner v. APPALACHIAN ENERGY PARTNERS 2001–D, LLP, Appalachian Energy Partners 2001–S, LLP, Appalachian Energy Partners 2001 II, LLP, Appalachian Energy Partners 2003 S–II, LLP, Burning Springs Energy Partners 1999, LLP, Burning Springs Energy Partners 2000, LLP, Burning Springs Energy Partners 2001–S, LLP, Cherokee Energy Company, Haynes # 2 Energy Partners 2001, LLP, Martin Twist Energy Co., LLC, Martin R. Twist, Drew Thomas, Tammy Curry Twist and Todd Pilcher Defendants Below, Respondents. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. “This Court will preclude enforcement of a circuit court's order compelling arbitration only after a de novo review of the circuit court's legal determinations leads to the inescapable conclusion that the circuit court clearly erred, as a matter of law, in directing that a matter be arbitrated or that the circuit court's order constitutes a clear-cut, legal error plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate.” Syllabus Point 4, McGraw v. American Tobacco Company, 224 W.Va. 211, 681 S.E.2d 96 (2009).
2. “A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Syllabus Point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).
3.“ ‘ “A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.” Syllabus Point 3, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).’ Syllabus Point 1, Andrick v. Town of Buckhannon, 187 W.Va. 706, 421 S.E.2d 247 (1992).” Syllabus Point 1, Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995).
4. Syllabus Point 3, Fayette County National Bank v. Lilly, 199 W.Va. 349, 484 S.E.2d 232 (1997).
5. “When a trial court is required to rule upon a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–307 (2006), the authority of the trial court is limited to determining the threshold issues of (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties; and (2) whether the claims averred by the plaintiff fall within the substantive scope of that arbitration agreement.” Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. TD Ameritrade v. Kaufman, 225 W.Va. 250, 692 S.E.2d 293 (2010).
7. “Unconscionability is an equitable principle, and the determination of whether a contract or a provision therein is unconscionable should be made by the court.” Syllabus Point 1, Troy Mining Corp. v. Itmann Coal Co., 176 W.Va. 599, 346 S.E.2d 749 (1986).
8. “If a court, as a matter of law, finds a contract or any clause of a contract to be unconscionable, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or limit the application of any unconscionable clause to avoid any unconscionable result.” Syllabus Point 16, Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 228 W.Va. 646, 724 S.E.2d 250 (2011).
9. Syllabus Point 20, Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 228 W.Va. 646, 724 S.E.2d 250 (2011).
10. Syllabus Point 17, Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 228 W.Va. 646, 724 S.E.2d 250 (2011).
11. Syllabus Point 18, Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 228 W.Va. 646, 724 S.E.2d 250 (2011).
12. Syllabus Point 19, Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 228 W.Va. 646, 724 S.E.2d 250 (2011).
13. Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. Dunlap v. Berger, 211 W.Va. 549, 567 S.E.2d 265 (2002).
Jeffrey K. Phillips, Esq., Robert L. Bailey, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Lexington, KY, for the Petitioner.
Mark Goldner, Esq., Maria W. Hughes, Esq., Hughes & Goldner, PLLC, and Scott H. Kaminski, Balgo and Kaminski, L.C., Charleston, WV, for the Respondents.
Lisa A. Hopkins, Esq., General Counsel, Shane P. McCullough, Esq., Associate Counsel, West Virginia State Auditor Office and Commissioner of Securities, Charleston, WV, for Amicus Curiae.
The instant case is before the Court upon the appeal of George Grayiel, Jr., Petitioner, from a February 1, 2011, order of the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, granting the Respondents' 1 Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing his lawsuit ruling that arbitration clauses in Petitioner's investment contracts are not unconscionable and are enforceable.2 Petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in: 1) requiring him to prove that the arbitration clauses in the parties' agreements are independently enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), rather than applying West Virginia law and finding those agreements unenforceable en toto; 2) failing to find the agreements' arbitration clauses independently unenforceable, either because they are unconscionable or because they were fraudulently procured; 3) refusing to find Respondent Martin Twist's deposition testimony an unresponsive and evasive effort to deprive Petitioner of any opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery; and 4) failing to enforce Respondent Twist's offer to repay Petitioner. Based upon the record before us, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable precedent, we find that the circuit court's order lacks the findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary for this Court to conduct a meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In January 2000, Martin Twist and Drew Thomas solicited Mr. Grayiel to invest in certain companies owned by Twist for the purpose of drilling for natural gas in and around Kanawha County, West Virginia. Petitioner entered into the first of twenty subscription and/or partnership agreements 3 with the Respondents in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Front
...Apex Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. U.S. Supply Co., Inc., 142 F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir.1998))); Grayiel v. Appalachian Energy Partners 2001–D, LLP, 230 W.Va. 91, ––––, 736 S.E.2d 91, 101 (2012) (identifying one purpose of arbitration as “providing a suitable alternative forum for plaintiff's claim......
-
State v. Webster
...434 N.E.2d 59, 62–63 (1982)), cert. denied,537 U.S. 1087, 123 S.Ct. 695, 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002).Grayiel v. Appalachian Energy Partners 2001–D, LLP, 230 W.Va. 91, 103, 736 S.E.2d 91, 103 (2012). Based upon our examination of the arbitration agreement, we find no basis upon which to conclude ......
-
Caudill v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...Syllabus Point 1, Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995). Syl. Pt. 3, Grayiel v. Appalachian Energy Partners 2001–D, LLP, 230 W.Va. 91, 736 S.E.2d 91 (2012). 11. The circuit court cited Aparicio v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 84 F.3d 803 (6th Cir.1996), abr......
-
Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Ellis
...Syl. Pt. 4, American States Ins. Co. v. Surbaugh , 231 W. Va. 288, 745 S.E.2d 179 (2013) ; and citing Grayiel v. Appalachian Energy Partners , 230 W.Va. 91, 101, 736 S.E.2d 91, 101 (2012) (rejecting claim of grossly inadequate bargaining power where signatory "had ample time to seek counsel......