Al Jones and Al Jones Architect, AIA, LLC v. Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 9th District Court of Appeals » 2012 » Al Jones and Al Jones Architect, AIA, LLC v. Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-12-00324-CV

Case Date: 12/20/2012

Plaintiff: Al Jones and Al Jones Architect, AIA, LLC

Defendant: Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring

Preview:In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________ NO. 09-12-00324-CV _________________ AL JONES AND AL JONES ARCHITECT, AIA, LLC, Appellants V. BRENT L. MAINWARING AND TATAYANA MAINWARING, Appellees ______________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 172nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. E-185,627 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this interlocutory appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing Al Jones's and Al Jones Architect, AIA, LLC's1 motion to compel arbitration. Brent and Tatayana Mainwaring hired architects to design and supervise the construction of their new home. The architectural agreement between the architects and the Mainwarings provides that "[a]ny claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to arbitration."

1

For convenience, we refer to the appellants together as the architects. 1

After they became aware of various problems with their home during its construction, the Mainwarings sued the architects and several other defendants, seeking to recover actual damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, interest, and costs. In response to the lawsuit, the architects filed a motion asking the trial court to enforce the arbitration provision in the parties' architectural agreement. The Mainwarings resisted arbitration, arguing that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable because Al Jones, when the parties entered the architectural agreement, was not a licensed architect in the State of Texas. The Mainwarings also argued that the choice-of-law provision in the architectural agreement, which provided that Louisiana law governed the agreement, was unconscionable. We conclude that the defenses the Mainwarings have raised concern the validity of the architectural agreement as a whole. Consequently, the defenses that the Mainwarings have asserted are matters for the arbitrator, as the defenses do not prevent the contract's arbitration clause from being enforced. The Mainwarings have also argued, in the alternative, that if the arbitration clause is enforceable that the architects waived their right to arbitrate. We disagree, because we hold the architects' litigation conduct has not resulted in a waiver of their right to enforce the arbitration provision at issue. Because the Mainwarings failed to establish in the trial court that the dispute was not arbitrable, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying the architects' motion to compel arbitration. We reverse the trial court's order denying the motion to compel

2

arbitration, and we remand the case to the trial court, requiring it to order the dispute with the architects to arbitration. Standard of Review We review the denial of a motion to compel arbitration under an abuse of discretion standard. See Okorafor v. Uncle Sam & Assocs., Inc., 295 S.W.3d 27, 38 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied.). "A party attempting to compel arbitration must first establish that the dispute in question falls within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement." J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Tex. 2003) (citing In re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex.1999)). "If the other party resists arbitration, the trial court must determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists." Id.; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

Download 09-12-00324-cv.pdf