Mission Res. v. Triple Net Properties
Decision Date | 11 January 2008 |
Docket Number | Record No. 062250. |
Citation | 654 S.E.2d 888,275 Va. 157 |
Parties | MISSION RESIDENTIAL, LLC v. TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES, LLC. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
John A. Burlingame (Donnie L. Kidd; Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, on briefs), Tysons Corner, for appellant.
Andrew K. Clark, (Everette G. Allen, Jr.; Ronald P. Herbert; Robert William Best; LeClair Ryan, on brief), Richmond, for appellee.
Present: HASSELL, C.J., KEENAN, KOONTZ, KINSER, LEMONS, and AGEE, JJ., and RUSSELL, S.J.
OPINION BY Senior Justice CHARLESS RUSSELL.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to stay arbitration proceedings pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.02(B).
The facts are not in dispute. In 2004, Triple Net Properties, LLC (Triple) was a firm engaged in the business of syndicating commercial properties for sale to investors as real estate securities. Mission Residential, LLC (Mission) was a firm with expertise in locating, evaluating, purchasing and managing multi-family apartment properties. The two firms, which were otherwise unrelated, entered into a joint venture for the purpose of identifying, purchasing, managing and selling multi-family properties for investors seeking to avail themselves of the tax advantages offered by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1031, for like-kind exchanges of qualifying properties.
In order to accomplish that purpose, Mission and Triple agreed to form a limited liability company named NNN/Mission Residential Holdings, LLC (Holdings) and executed an "Operating Agreement" for Holdings dated "as of October 1, 2004." The operating agreement provides that Mission and Triple are to be the sole members of Holdings, with equal membership interests, and are to manage Holdings jointly. The sole question presented by this appeal is the effect of Section 13.9 of the operating agreement, which provides in pertinent part:
In March 2006, Triple commenced an arbitration proceeding against Mission, asserting a direct claim for breach of contract and also a derivative claim against Mission on behalf of Holdings. The arbitrator ruled that Triple lacked standing to assert the direct claim, but allowed Triple's derivative claim on behalf of Holdings to go forward. In August 2006, Mission brought this action in the circuit court, seeking a declaratory judgment that there was no agreement to arbitrate disputes between Holdings and Mission, requesting an order to stay the arbitration proceeding pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.02(B), and seeking other relief.
Mission asked the arbitrator to defer a ruling on the arbitrability of Triple's derivative claims pending a judicial determination of that issue, but the arbitrator declined to do so, and on August 29, 2006, ruled that the derivative claims were arbitrable. The arbitrator based his ruling on Rule R-7(a) of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, which was incorporated by reference in Section 13.9 of the operating agreement. Rule R-7(a) makes the arbitrator the sole judge of the issue of arbitrability.
In October 2006, after a review of the pleadings, exhibits and arguments of counsel, the circuit court ruled that the arbitrator had correctly decided the issue of arbitrability. The court entered an order denying the motion to stay arbitration and dismissing Mission's complaint. We awarded Mission an appeal.
The law of contracts governs the question whether there exists a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Such an agreement must contain the essential elements of a valid contract at common law. The question whether such a contract exists is a pure question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review. Phillips v. Mazyck, 273 Va. 630, 635-36, 643 S.E.2d 172, 175 (2007) (citations omitted).
"A party cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration unless he has first agreed to arbitrate." Doyle & Russell, Inc. v. Roanoke Hosp. Ass'n, 213 Va. 489, 494, 193 S.E.2d 662, 666 (1973) (citations omitted). When the question before the court is whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate, there is no presumption in favor of arbitrability. Rather, the party seeking arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of the agreement. See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 945-46, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). A presumption in favor of arbitrability arises only after the existence of such an agreement has been proved, and the remaining question is whether the scope of the agreement is broad enough to include the disputed issue. Id. Here, Triple bore the burden of proving that Mission had contracted to arbitrate Mission's disputes with Holdings.
We adhere to the view that the public policy of Virginia favors arbitration. TM Delmarva Power, L.L.C. v. NCP of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kun v. Shuman
...a legal entity entirely separate and distinct from the shareholders and members who compose it." Mission Residential. LLC v. Triple Net Prop., LLC, 275 Va. 157, 161, 654 S.E.2d 888, 891 (2008). In Virginia, "[t]he overwhelming majority rule is that an action for injuries to a corporation ca......
-
Hawkins v. Fishbeck
...Mullins v. First Nat. Exch. Bank of Va. , 275 F.Supp. 712, 721 (W.D. Va. 1967) ; see Mission Residential, LLC v. Triple Net Properties, LLC , 275 Va. 157, 161–62, 654 S.E.2d 888 (2008) (applying this principle to limited liability companies). While Plaintiff cannot sue directly for any alle......
-
NC Fin. Solutions of Utah, LLC v. Commonwealth ex rel. Herring
...a "valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate" exists between the parties in any given case. Mission Residential, LLC v. Triple Net Properties, LLC , 275 Va. 157, 160, 654 S.E.2d 888 (2008). As a general principle, "[a] party cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration unless [it] has fi......
-
SS Richmond LLC v. Harrison
...and be sued.” Hagan v. Adams Prop. Assocs., Inc., 482 S.E.2d 805, 807 (Va. 1997); Mission Residential, LLC v. Triple Net Properties, LLC, 654 S.E.2d 888, 891 (Va. 2008) (“[A] limited liability company is a legal entity entirely separate and distinct from the shareholders or members who comp......
-
Litigation
...member could compel plaintiff member to arbitrate claims asserted by plaintiff. Mission Residential, LLC v. Triple Net Properties , 654 S.E. 2d 888 (Va. 2008). Virginia Supreme Court held that arbitration clause and operating agreement did not require arbitration of member’s derivative clai......
-
The Georgia Llc Act Comes of Age
...1997) (LLC was not bound by the arbitration clause in its operating agreement), and Mission Residential, LLC v. Triple Net Props. LLC, 654 S.E.2d 888 (Va. 2008) (similar), with Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc. v. Jaffari, 727 A.2d 286, 293 (Del. 1999) (prior to enactment of Delaware statutory rule ......