In re Provine, 01-09-00769-CV
Decision Date | 10 December 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 01-09-00769-CV,01-09-00770-CV.,01-09-00769-CV |
Parties | In re Mark Cecil PROVINE, Relator Mark Cecil Provine, Appellant, v. Kelly Geis Provine, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Adam Joel Morris, Houston, TX, Sallee S. Smyth, Richmond, TX, for Appellant.
Walter P. Mahoney, The Mahoney Law Firm, Pasadena, TX, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices BLAND and MASSENGALE.
In this dispute arising out of a divorce decree, Mark Cecil Provine seeks relief from the trial court's denial of his motion to compel arbitration via an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus.1 Mark contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion. We conclude that the trial court erred by denying the motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the final divorce decree. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order. We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.
The partial mediated settlement agreement establishes a procedure for the resolution of the parties' disputes concerning the divorce decree. It states:
Thereafter, disputes arose over the division of property. On March 25, 2009, Kelly petitioned for enforcement of the agreement, contending that Mark had not properly performed his obligations pursuant to the property division set forth in the agreement.
On September 3, 2009, the trial court signed an order denying Mark's motion to compel arbitration. In the order, the trial court noted that "the Court finds that it has no plenary power to compel arbitration at this time."
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")2 or the Texas Arbitration Act ("TAA").3 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 51.016 (Vernon Supp.2009);4 id. § 171.098 (Vernon 2005). The FAA preempts all otherwise applicable state laws, including the TAA, under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. VI; see Allied-Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 272, 115 S.Ct. 834, 838, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995). But the FAA preempts the TAA only if "(1) the agreement is in writing, (2) it involves interstate commerce, (3) it can withstand scrutiny under traditional contract defenses under state law, and (4) state law affects the enforceability of the agreement." In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 780 (Tex.2006) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Nexion Health at Humble, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 67, 69 (Tex. 2005)). "For the FAA to preempt the TAA, state law must refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement that the FAA would enforce." Id.
Here, the arbitration agreement provides that it is governed by the laws of Texas. It does not specifically exclude the FAA, but nothing in the agreement involves interstate commerce, and the property at issue is within Texas. Moreover, the parties have asserted nothing in the TAA that would subvert enforcement of the agreement, where the FAA would otherwise enforce it. Therefore, the FAA does not preempt the TAA in this case. Id. Because we have jurisdiction to hear the case via an appeal, we dismiss Mark's petition for writ of mandamus. Id.
In his sole issue, Mark contends that the trial court erred by denying the motion to compel arbitration.
A party moving to compel arbitration must establish (1) the existence of a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement and (2) that the claims asserted fall within the scope of that agreement. Valero Energy Corp. v. Teco Pipeline Co., 2 S.W.3d 576, 581 (Tex.App.-Houston 14th Dist. 1999, no pet.). If the movant establishes that an arbitration agreement governs the dispute, the burden then shifts to the party opposing arbitration to establish a defense to the arbitration agreement. See In re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.1999) (orig. proceeding). A party may revoke the agreement only on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 171.001 (Vernon 2005). "Once the trial court concludes that the arbitration agreement encompasses the claims, and that the party opposing arbitration has failed to prove its defenses, the trial court has no discretion but to compel arbitration and stay its own proceedings." In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 753-54 (Tex.2001).
Whether an agreement imposes a duty to arbitrate is a question of law which the appellate court reviews de novo. In re C & H News Co., 133 S.W.3d 642, 645 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, orig. proceeding). In determining whether a claim falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement, the court must focus on the factual allegations of the underlying suit and resolve any doubts in favor of coverage. In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d at 753, 754. "Texas law favors arbitration." Kosty v. S. Shore Harbour Cmty. Ass'n, Inc., 226 S.W.3d 459, 463 (Tex.App.-Houston 1st Dist. 2006, pet. denied).
In First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, the United States Supreme Court stated that "when deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter (including arbitrability), courts generally... should apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts," with the qualification that, "when courts decide whether a party has agreed that arbitrators should decide arbitrability," courts "should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is `clear and unmistakable' evidence that they did so." 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 1924, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995); accord In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex.2005) (); Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., LP v. San Juan Basin Royalty Trust, 249 S.W.3d 34, 39-42 (Tex.App.-Houston 1st Dist. 2007, pet. denied). A mediator may also serve as an arbitrator if the parties consent. See In re Cartwright, 104 S.W.3d 706, 714 (Tex.App.-Houston 1st Dist. 2003, orig. proceeding) (the parties) mediator should not act as arbitrator in the same or a related dispute without the express consent of .
A trial court's power to modify its judgment is virtually absolute during the period of its plenary power. See Stallworth v. Stallworth, 201 S.W.3d 338, 349 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.). The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Forged Components, Inc. v. Guzman
...issue fall within that agreement's scope. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex.2005) (orig. proceeding); In re Provine, 312 S.W.3d 824, 828 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding). Generally speaking, we review the trial court's denial of a motion to comp......
-
FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus), Ltd. v. Didmon
...514 U.S., 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995), In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 781 (Tex.2006), and In re Provine, 312 S.W.3d 824, 829 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding) —argues that when determining whether parties have agreed to arbitrate courts......
-
In re Mabray
...the dispute, the burden then shifts to the party opposing arbitration to establish a defense to the arbitration agreement. In re Provine, 312 S.W.3d 824, 829 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding). A party may revoke the agreement only on a ground that exists at law or in equ......
-
Berry Y&V Fabricators, LLC v. Bambace
...the dispute, the burden then shifts to the party opposing arbitration to establish a defense to the arbitration agreement. In re Provine , 312 S.W.3d 824, 829 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding). A party may defend against the enforceability of the agreement only on a gro......