Long v. DeGeer, 65964

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Citation1987 OK 104,753 P.2d 1327
Docket NumberNo. 65964,65964
PartiesMary L. LONG, Appellee, v. Bill DeGEER, Appellant.
Decision Date27 October 1987

Page 1327

753 P.2d 1327
1987 OK 104
Mary L. LONG, Appellee,
Bill DeGEER, Appellant.
No. 65964.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Oct. 27, 1987.
Rehearing Denied May 3, 1988.

Appeal from District Court of Tulsa County; Ronald L. Shaffer, Trial judge.

Appellant stockbroker appeals from trial court's order refusing to compel arbitration of appellee's claims regarding alleged fraudulent and/or negligent handling of stock account where Securities Account Agreement entered into between appellee and appellant's principal contained provision that such controversies relating to accounts or transactions shall be settled by arbitration.


Pray, Walker, Jackman, Williamson & Marlar by J. Warren Jackman, and James F. Bullock, Tulsa, for appellee.

Moyers, Martin, Santee, Imel & Tetrick by John M. Imel, and John E. Rooney, Jr., Tulsa, for appellant.

LAVENDER, Justice:

On May 27, 1983, appellee Mary L. Long signed a Securities Account Agreement in

Page 1328

consideration of Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., opening and carrying a securities account for appellee. The agreement contained the following provision:

Arbitration of Controversies

Any controversy between us arising out of or relating to accounts of or transactions with or for me or to this agreement or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of either the American Arbitration Association or the Board of Arbitration of the New York Stock Exchange, as I may elect. If I do not make such an election by registered mail addressed to you in your main office in New York City within five (5) days after demand by you that such election be made, then you may make such election on my behalf. Judgment upon any award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court, state or federal, having jurisdiction.

On December 13, 1984, appellee brought an action in United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma naming Kidder, Peabody as defendant. That action was based, inter alia, on allegations that appellee had been induced into the relationship with Kidder, Peabody by fraud and misrepresentation and that appellee had been damaged by Kidder, Peabody's fraudulent and/or negligent dealings regarding appellee's securities account.

The federal court, on April 25, 1985, entered an order staying appellee's claims based on alleged federal securities act violations and ordered the remainder of appellee's claims to be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement.

On September 16, 1985, appellee brought the present action in Tulsa County District Court naming appellant Bill DeGeer as sole defendant. Appellant, as a stockbroker employee of Kidder, Peabody, had dealt with appellee from the initiation of her dealings with Kidder, Peabody, and had handled the transactions involving her securities account. Appellee's petition before the state court alleged that appellant had fraudulently induced her into the securities account agreement and had subsequently caused her damages from the fraudulent and/or negligent handling of her securities account. Appellant moved the trial court for an order compelling appellee to submit her complaints to arbitration in compliance with the provisions of the securities account agreement. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration and appellant appealed from that order. 1

The courts generally look with favor upon arbitration provisions as a shortcut to substantial justice with a minimum of court interference. 2 Appellee argues that the arbitration clause of this contract should not be given effect for two reasons: one, that it would be against public policy; and two, that appellant should not be given the benefit of the arbitration provisions as he was not a signatory to the securities account agreement.

We address the second argument first. Appellee appears to base this argument on the premise that there is no contractual relationship existing between appellee and appellant as a result of the securities account agreement. Appellee's pleadings, however, indicate that the basis for the action against appellant was the existence of the securities account agreement and appellant's handling of appellee's securities account. In this regard appellant clearly acted as the agent of Kidder, Peabody, both in securing appellee's account initially and in the later handling of that account. Appellee was at all times clearly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Shaffer v. Jeffery, s. 81275
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 26 Marzo 1996
    ...835, 837 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1021, 109 S.Ct. 1745, 104 L.Ed.2d 182 (1989). We recognized this rule in Long v. DeGeer, 753 P.2d 1327 (Okla.1987) where we stated that: "Appellee's assertion that she was induced to enter into the securities account agreement by fraud is its......
  • Raines v. Independent School Dist. No. 6 of Craig County, 6
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 17 Julio 1990
    ...the law as we viewed it in Voss v. City of Oklahoma City, 618 P.2d 925 (Okla.1980), and in all our previous cases. Long v. DeGeer, 753 P.2d 1327 (Okla.1987); Taylor v. Johnson, 706 P.2d 896 (Okla.1985); Garner v. City of Tulsa, 651 P.2d 1325 (Okla.1982); City of Midwest City v. Harris, 561 ......
  • Rollings v. Thermodyne Industries, Inc., 82774
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 23 Enero 1996
    ...directly address the validity of the arbitration provision because we held that the agreement was governed by New York law. Long v. DeGeer, 753 P.2d 1327 (Okla.1988), presented another issue with regard to a private contract which included an arbitration clause. We upheld the arbitration pr......
  • Massey v. Farmers Ins. Group, 75279
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 2 Junio 1992
    ...(1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Shear, Okl., 796 P.2d 296, 298 (1990); Long v. DeGeer, Okl., 753 P.2d 1327, 1330 (1988) (Opala, J., concurring).29 For the pertinent terms of Art. 5, § 46, Okl.Const., see supra note 8.30 For the pertinent terms of Art. 5, § ......
  • 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