The Dunes of Gp, L.L.C. v. Bradford
Decision Date | 13 April 2007 |
Docket Number | 1051501. |
Citation | 966 So.2d 924 |
Parties | THE DUNES OF GP, L.L.C. v. Virginia BRADFORD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Daniel G. Blackburn and Cynthia J. Sherman of Blackburn & Conner, P.C., Bay Minette, for appellant.
Shawn T. Alves and J. Bradford Boyd Hicks of Stone, Granade & Crosby, P.C., Bay Minette, for appellee.
The Dunes of GP, L.L.C. ("The Dunes"), appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration of an action against it filed by Virginia Bradford. We affirm.
In June 2004, Bradford entered into a preconstruction "purchase agreement" with The Dunes to buy a condominium unit in a development in Gulf Shores known as The Dunes Condominiums. The purchase agreement contained the following arbitration provision:
Bradford tendered $31,500 as an "initial earnest money deposit"; the earnest money was deposited with Gulf Shores Title Company, Inc. ("Gulf Shores Title").
For reasons unclear from the record, Bradford and The Dunes never closed on the transaction. Subsequently, both Bradford and The Dunes sought to obtain the $31,500 in earnest money deposited with Gulf Shores Title.
On December 12, 2005, Gulf Shores Title filed an action interpleading Bradford and The Dunes and seeking a judgment declaring which of them was the rightful owner of the $31,500. The Dunes answered and filed a cross-claim against Bradford, asserting that it was entitled to the $31,500. Bradford filed an answer, a cross-claim against The Dunes, and a third-party complaint against various parties, seeking specific performance of the purchase agreement and damages for breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.
On April 13, 2006, The Dunes filed a motion to compel Bradford to submit her claims against it to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the purchase agreement. Bradford filed a response, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion. On June 13, 2006, the trial court denied The Dunes' the motion. The Dunes appeals.
Vann v. First Cmty. Credit Corp., 834 So.2d 751, 752-53 (Ala.2002).
The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. ("the FAA"), provides that "[a] written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable ...." 9 U.S.C. § 2. The FAA "mandates the arbitration of claims encompassed by an arbitration clause that is contained in a binding contract that involves interstate commerce." Ex parte Conference America, Inc., 713 So.2d 953, 955 (Ala.1998).
In support of its motion to compel arbitration, The Dunes submitted a copy of the purchase agreement, which contains the arbitration provision, along with various documentary evidence establishing that the transaction that formed the basis for the purchase agreement involved interstate commerce. Therefore, the burden then shifted to Bradford to produce evidence indicating that the arbitration agreement was not valid or that it did not apply to the dispute in question.
Bradford argues that the language of the arbitration provision limits its scope to either disputes that arise after the closing of the transaction or disputes that remain unresolved after the closing. Bradford testified in a affidavit opposing the motion to compel that because the parties never closed on the purchase of the condominium, the arbitration provision does not apply because the triggering event—the closing—never occurred. Bradford argues that she does not contest the validity of the arbitration provision; instead, she contends that by its language it simply does not apply to the dispute in question. The Dunes, on the other hand, argues that the arbitration provision covers disputes that arise before the closing.
Medical Servs., LLC v. GMW & Co., [Ms. 1041753, December 15, 2006] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.2006).
In interpreting an arbitration provision, "any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability." Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) (emphasis added). Ex parte Colquitt, 808 So.2d 1018, 1024 (Ala.2001) (emphasis added).
The Dunes' argument is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Riley v. Lorillard Tobacco
...of the parties is to be derived from the contract itself, where the language is plain and unambiguous.'" Dunes of GP, L.L.C. v. Bradford, 966 So.2d 924, 928 (Ala.2007) (quoting Loerch v. National Bank of Commerce of Birmingham, 624 So.2d 552, 553 (Ala.1993)). Subsection IX(j), which is incl......
-
Baldwin County Elec. Corp. v. Fairhope
...reply brief at 17. Arguments made for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this Court. See The Dunes of GP, L.L.C. v. Bradford, 966 So.2d 924, 929 (Ala.2007) (stating the "settled rule that this Court does not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief" (ci......
-
Family Sec. Credit Union v. Etheredge
...of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.’ " The Dunes of GP, L.L.C. v. Bradford, 966 So.2d 924, 927 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24–25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) ......
-
African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc. v. Smith, 1141100, 1141101, 1150055, 1150156.
...alleges establish waiver, we cannot conclude "with positive assurance" that they support a finding of waiver. The Dunes of GP, L.L.C. v. Bradford, 966 So.2d 924, 927 (Ala.2007). Inasmuch as we are concluding that Levins did not meet his burden of establishing that the defendants substantial......