Texas Supreme Court Finds No Waiver of Right to Enforce Arbitration Clause

Back to Business as Usual on the Arbitration Front COMMENT BY WOLFGANG HIRCZY DE MINO The arbitration-friendly Texas Supreme Court recently made headlines by holding - for the first time - that the right to arbitrate was (implicitly) waived by substantially invoking the judicial process and conducting discovery. It overturned a substantial arbitration award in favor of consumers in a residential construction dispute with a builder who also happens to be a major contributor to the judicial election campaigns of the incumbents on the court. In ruling for Perry Homes, and remanding for a trial on the merits, which the home owners had avoided by moving for arbitration shortly before the trial setting, the Court based its decision on the "totality of the circumstances." Arguably, the totality-of-the circumstances test amounts to no test or jurisprudential guideline at all, while preserving for the Court full discretion to resolve what constitutes waiver on a case-by-case basis ad hoc. The contours of what constitutes waiver-by-conduct remain nebulous, putting litigants who do not immediately pursue arbitration at risk. In this subsequent case, the Court finds no waiver, as has been its pattern prior to Perry Homes v. Cull (Tex. 2008). Resolving the petition in a per curiam opinion, it issues a mandamus order requiring the judge of the trial court to send the parties to arbitration. In Re Fleetwood Homes of Texas, LP, No. 06-0943 (Tex. June 20, 2008)(orig. proc.) (per curiam) (mandamus granted to compel arbitration) Also see prior post: Texas Supreme Court Finds No Waiver - In Re CitiGroup ═══════════════════════════════════════════ In Re Fleetwood Homes of Texas (Tex. 2008) (orig. proc.) ═══════════════════════════════════════════ PER CURIAM [Note: links are not part of the court's opinion; footnote omitted; go to court's web site to read opinion in pdf) Parties that “conduct full discovery, file motions going to the merits, and seek arbitration only on the eve of trial” waive any contractual right to arbitration. In re Vesta Ins. Group, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. 2006). The relators here did none of those, instead merely discussing a potential trial setting and sending a set of written discovery the day before moving to compel arbitration. The trial court held the relators waived arbitration, and a divided court of appeals denied mandamus relief. ___ S.W.3d ___. We disagree, and thus conditionally grant it. See In re Weekley, 180 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex. 2005) (“Mandamus relief is proper to enforce arbitration agreements governed by the FAA.”). Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., manufactures mobile homes. In January 2005 it signed a dealer agreement with Gulf Regional Services, Inc., an owner and developer of mobile home parks in southeast Texas that also sells and leases mobile homes. The agreement included an arbitration clause covering “any dispute, controversy or claim among the Parties.” In August 2005 Fleetwood cancelled the agreement on the ground that Gulf was planning to sell or use mobile homes at a location other than that specified in the dealer agreement.After Gulf filed suit in October 2005, Fleetwood filed an answer demanding arbitration, but did not actually move to compel arbitration until July 2006. Gulf opposed the motion on two grounds: express waiver and unconscionability.“[A] party waives an arbitration clause by substantially invoking the judicial process to the other party’s detriment or prejudice.” Perry Homes v. Cull, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2007). Waiver is a legal question for the court based on the totality of the circumstances, and asks whether a party has substantially invoked the judicial process to an opponent’s detriment, the latter term meaning inherent unfairness caused by “a party’s attempt to have it both ways by switching between litigation and arbitration to its own advantage.” Id. at __. Gulf argues that Fleetwood expressly waived arbitration, pointing to several emails from Fleetwood’s counsel regarding a proposed trial setting, culminating in the following:I have reviewed the Setting Request and would ask that we try to get a setting in March . . . . Given the documentation I received last week and the work we need to do as a result of those documents, Fleetwood is not going to be in a position to try this case in December. If you are agreeable to this, we could sign an agreed Setting Request, otherwise, I will have to oppose the request after you submit it and request a later setting.We need not decide whether Gulf is correct that express waiver is governed by different rules than those that govern implied waiver, as we disagree that this rises to the level of an express waiver. Nothing in this communication expressly waives arbitration or revokes the arbitration demand Fleetwood included in every answer it filed.Instead, the question here is whether Fleetwood impliedly waived arbitration by failing to pursue its arbitration demand for eight months while discussing a trial setting and allowing limited discovery. We have already answered that question “No.” In EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, we held a party had not waived arbitration by filing an answer, discussing a docket-control order, sending written discovery, noticing a deposition, and agreeing to postpone a trial setting. 934 S.W.2d 87, 90 (Tex. 1996). Gulf points out correctly that the movant in EZ Pawn had not yet “discovered” the arbitration clause until after these actions had already taken place. Id. at 89. But our opinion was based on the nonmovant’s failure to show any prejudice, id. at 90, a requirement we recently reaffirmed. See Perry Homes, __ S.W.3d at __. As in EZ Pawn, the evidence here is legally insufficient to support a finding of prejudice. Gulf does not explain how it possibly could have been prejudiced by exchanging emails about a trial setting. Moreover, while these communications are a factor to be considered in the totality-of-the-circumstances, they are not the only factors. See id. at ___. Here, Fleetwood took no depositions, although it noticed one deposition before cancelling it.[1] It served one set of written discovery the day before it moved to compel arbitration. It filed no dispositive motions, nor did it wait until the eve of trial to move to compel. Taken together, these actions are not enough to overcome the presumption against waiver. See In re Vesta Ins. Group, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. 2006); In re Bruce Terminix, 988 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. 1998). Gulf also argues the arbitration clause is substantively unconscionable, citing two reasons. First, it asserts that arbitration limits its right to discovery. But limited discovery is one of arbitration’s “most distinctive features.” Perry Homes, ___ S.W.3d at ___; see also Preston v. Ferrer, ___ U.S. ___, ___ (2008) (“A prime objective of an agreement to arbitrate is to achieve streamlined proceedings and expeditious results.”). Gulf’s argument that “streamlined” discovery makes arbitration unconscionable would nullify almost all arbitration agreements. We hold that arbitration’s limits on discovery for both parties does not make it unconscionable. See In re Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 672, 678 (Tex. 2006) (“The test for substantive unconscionability is whether, given the parties’ general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clause involved is so one-sided that it is unconscionable under the circumstances existing when the parties made the contract.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Second, Gulf asserts the agreement here is unconscionable because it allows the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees. It is true that absent a contractual agreement like this, Texas law allows attorney’s fees only for a prevailing plaintiff. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001–.002. But allowing both parties to recover fees hardly makes an agreement “one-sided”; such agreements, common in commercial contexts, surely make them less so. Because Gulf has failed to show that Fleetwood waived its contractual right to arbitration, we conditionally grant Fleetwood’s petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to compel arbitration. We are confident that the trial court will promptly comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not. OPINION DELIVERED: June 20, 2008

Failure to appear for arbitration results in default judgment

Pro se appellant fails to convince court of appeals that default judgment should be set aside in child custody modification suit; no motion for new trial was filed in the court below. Llorance v. Sohi No. 01-07-00840-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 17, 2008)(Higley) (family law SAPCR modification, default judgment arbitration order affirmed) Opinion by Justice Higley Before Justices Nuchia, Hanks and Higley Full case style: Leezet Llorance v. Farhad Safavi Sohi Appeal from 257th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: The Honorable Judy L. Warne Disposition: Family district court's judgment affirmed MEMORANDUM OPINION [Note: Footnotes omitted; to see full opinion, click on case name above] In this suit affecting the parent-child relationship, pro se appellant, Leezat Llorance, appeals the trial court’s default modification order, which modifies an earlier order establishing the parent-child relationship between Llorance’s minor child, F.P.L.S., and appellee, Farhad Safavi Sohi. Raising what we construe to be one issue, Llorance complains that the default modification order should be set aside because she was unable to attend the arbitration hearing, from which the modification order emanated, because F.P.L.S. was ill. We affirm. Background On September 28, 2004, the trial court signed an “Agreed Order Establishing the Parent Child Relationship” (“the agreed order”) in which Farhad Safavi Sohi was adjudicated to be the father of F.P.L.S. The agreed order appointed Llorance as F.P.L.S.’s sole managing conservator and named Sohi as possessory conservator. With respect to possession, the agreed order provided that, until F.P.L.S.’s fifth birthday on July 15, 2008, Sohi was entitled to supervised visitation with F.P.L.S. every Saturday. The agreed order further provided that, beginning July 15, 2008, Sohi would be entitled to visitation under a standard possession order, as set forth in Family Code sections 153.311 through 153.317. Sohi was also ordered to pay Llorance monthly child support in the amount of $256.00. On March 16, 2006, Sohi filed a petition seeking modification of the agreed order. Sohi requested that he immediately be given possession of F.P.L.S. pursuant to a standard possession order. He also requested that his monthly child-support payments be decreased. Llorance answered and filed a counter-petition in which she requested an increase in child support and alleged that Sohi should not be given possession of F.P.L.S. pursuant to a standard possession order. Llorance alleged that Sohi did not seek the modification in the best interest of F.P.L.S., rather he sought modification to “retaliate” against her and to cause her “financial ruin.” The modification action was tried by an arbitrator on August 31, 2007. Sohi and his counsel attended the arbitration hearing; however, Llorance did not attend. On that same day, the arbitrator signed an order entitled “Arbitrator’s Binding Order in Suit to Modify Agreed Order Establishing the Parent-Child Relationship” (“the default modification order”) in which the arbitrator noted that Llorance had not appeared at the arbitration hearing. In the default modification order, the arbitrator removed Llorance as F.P.L.S.’s sole managing conservator and appointed Sohi and Llorance as joint managing conservators. Llorance retained the right to establish F.P.L.S.’s primary place of residence with a geographic restriction. With respect to visitation, the arbitrator incorporated the statutory standard possession order. The modification order also increased Sohi’s monthly child support to $300.00. The trial court signed and adopted the modification order on September 27, 2007. Llorance did not file a motion for new trial. On October 2, 2007, Llorance filed a pro se notice of appeal in which she challenged the default modification order. In the notice of appeal, Llorance admitted she had received notice of the arbitration hearing, but alleged that she had been unable to attend because she had taken F.P.L.S. to the emergency room in the early morning hours of August 31, 2007, the day of arbitration. Llorance asserted that, on that morning, she had spoken to the arbitrator’s assistant and had repeatedly called and left messages for the arbitrator to inform the arbitrator that she could not attend arbitration because she had to take F.P.L.S. to the emergency room. Llorance claimed that the arbitrator never returned her calls. Llorance stated that F.P.L.S. was admitted to the hospital on August 31, 2007 and remained hospitalized until September 2, 2007. In the notice of appeal, Llorance further alleged that, on September 2, 2007, she faxed a letter to the arbitrator in which she explained why she had not attended trial and questioned why her telephone messages to the arbitrator had not been returned. Llorance also attached a copy of F.P.L.S.’s hospital discharge record. Llorance contended that the first response from the arbitrator came on September 27, 2007, when Llorance received a letter from the arbitrator informing her of the default modification order. In her notice of appeal, Llorance asked for a hearing date and requested that the original agreed order remain in effect until the appeal is determined. In support of the allegations in the notice of appeal, Llorance attached copies of her telephone records to show that she had made numerous attempts to contact the arbitrator, the September 2, 2007 letter that Llorance faxed to the arbitrator with the appended medical record, and the letter from the arbitrator notifying Llorance of the default modification order. Although not shown in the record, Llorance also asserts that arbitration had originally been set on April 11, 2007. On that date, Llorance claims that she and her then attorney had attended arbitration but that Sohi and his counsel had not appeared. According to Llorance, the arbitrator had contacted Sohi and rescheduled the arbitration. Llorance questions why Sohi was given an opportunity to reschedule arbitration and relies on this perceived inequitable treatment in challenging the default modification order on appeal. Llorance also questions why the arbitrator signed the default modification order, which was prepared by Sohi’s counsel, on the same date as the hearing. Llorance concludes her appellate brief by requesting that the default modification order be set aside and that the agreed order be reinstated. Analysis We begin by acknowledging that the same prerequisites for setting aside a “no-answer” default also apply to a “post-answer” default, such as the one at issue here. Cliff v. Huggins, 724 S.W.2d 778, 779 (Tex. 1987). Harris v. Burks, No. 01-06-00128-CV, 2007 WL 1776048 at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 21, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). When, as here, extrinsic evidence is necessary to challenge a default judgment, a motion for new trial is a prerequisite to complaining on appeal that it should be set aside. In re J.D.K., No. 02-06-280-CV, 2007 WL 2792487 at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 27, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing, in part, Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(1); Massey v. Columbus State Bank, 35 S.W.3d 697, 699 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied)). As mentioned, Llorance did not file a motion for new trial. Even if we construe her notice of appeal as a motion for new trial under the limited facts of this case, see J.D.K., 2007 WL 2792487 at *2, Llorance failed to show that the default modification order should be set aside and a new trial ordered. A trial court should set aside a default judgment and grant a new trial if (1) the failure to appear was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but rather was due to accident or mistake; (2) the defendant sets up a meritorious defense; and (3) the granting of a new trial would not cause delay or otherwise injure the prevailing party. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. 1939); see In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 114–15 (Tex. 2006). Though she makes allegations pertinent to the first Craddock prong in her notice of appeal, Llorance neither sets up a meritorious defense nor asserts that granting a new trial would not cause delay or injure Sohi. Accordingly, we overrule Llorance’s complaint that the trial court improperly signed a default judgment against her for her failure to appear at arbitration. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Laura Carter Higley Justice Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Higley.

In re Jindal Saw Limited (Tex.App.- Houston 2008)

In re Jindal Saw Limited No. 01-07-01068-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] May 22, 2008) (Alcala) (workplace safety, occupational injury, worker's comp, nonsubscriber, arbitration, wrongful death, survival action) Opinion by Justice Else Alcala Panel Composition: Justices Tim Taft, Evelyn Keyes, and Elsa Alcala Full style of this case: In re Jindal Saw Limited, Jindal Enterprises LLC, and Saw Pipes USA Appeal from Probate Court No 1 of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Russell Austin Disposition: Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus Attorneys: Levi G McCathern II, Jeffrey Christopher Wright Attorney Kurt B. Arnold, Marvin B. Peterson, Micajah Daniel Boatright By petition for writ of mandamus, relators, Jindal Saw Limited, Jindal Enterprises LLC, and Saw Pipes USA, Inc. (collectively, “Saw Pipes”), challenge the trial court’s October 11, 2007 order denying Saw Pipes’ motion to compel arbitration.[1] In two issues, Saw Pipes contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion to compel arbitration of the survival action and wrongful-death claims because an enforceable arbitration agreement exists and the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. We conclude that the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement are bound to arbitrate the survival action claims because the signatory agreed to arbitrate his claims against Saw Pipes. We also conclude, however, that the non-signatories’ wrongful-death claims are not bound by the arbitration agreement because those claims are personal to the non-signatories and they did not agree to arbitrate the claims. We grant the petition for writ of mandamus for the survival action and deny the petition for writ of mandamus for the wrongful-death claims. * * * Conclusion By denying the motion to compel arbitration in the October 11, 2007 order, the trial court abused its discretion with regard to the survival claim and did not abuse its discretion with regard to the wrongful-death claims. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandamus for Yvonne’s survival claim and deny the petition for writ of mandamus for the wrongful-death claims of Yvonne and the children. We lift the stay that we issued when the petition was filed. We are confident that the trial court will act promptly in accord with this opinion, and our writ will issue only if it does not. Elsa Alcala Justice

No Waiver: In Re CitiGroup Global Markets, Inc. (Tex. May 16, 2008)

Texas Supreme Court rejects arbitration waiver theory in suit brought by customers Contrary to its recent decision vacating an arbitration award in favor of homeowners in a residential construction dispute (in which it held consumers had waived arbitration by conducting extensive discovery), the Texas Supreme Court finds no waiver of contractual right to arbitrate in case in which corporate defendant had litigated in several forums, but had reserved right to move for arbitration in suit brought by investors, which it did on remand to state court. In Re CitiGroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 06-0886 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam) (arbitration compelled, no express or implied waiver of contractual right to arbitrate found) Also see --> Other per curiam decisions Texas Arbitration Case Law - Decisions ═════════════════════════════════════ In Re Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Tex. May 16, 2008) ═════════════════════════════════════ PER CURIAM Parties that “conduct full discovery, file motions going to the merits, and seek arbitration only on the eve of trial” waive any contractual right to arbitration. In re Vesta Ins. Group, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. 2006). The relator here did none of those, but instead spent seven months removing the case to various federal courts before finally filing an answer in state court with a contemporaneous motion to compel arbitration. The courts below held the relator’s transfer efforts waived arbitration. 202 S.W.3d 477. We disagree, and thus conditionally grant mandamus relief. See In re Weekley, 180 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex. 2005) (“Mandamus relief is proper to enforce arbitration agreements governed by the FAA.”). Robert and Natalie Nickell had investment accounts with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (formerly known as Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.), and signed agreements to arbitrate any disputes “concerning or arising from” their accounts. The Nickells allegedly lost more than $4 million after they invested in WorldCom Inc. based on research reports by a Citigroup analyst. The Nickells sued Citigroup, which immediately removed the case to federal court on the ground that it related to WorldCom’s bankruptcy proceedings. In federal court, the Nickells moved to remand and Citigroup moved to transfer the case to a federal multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) court in New York managing similar WorldCom-related suits against Citigroup. Citigroup moved to stay proceedings in the federal court pending the MDL panel’s decision, specifically reserving its defense “that Plaintiffs arbitrate, not litigate, their claims.” The MDL panel conditionally transferred the case to the MDL court. The Nickells asked the panel to vacate the order, which the panel denied before transferring the case. Once in the MDL court, a stay order excused Citigroup from filing an answer or pleading any defenses. Undeterred by past failures, the Nickells filed another motion for remand in the MDL court. Undeterred by past successes, Citigroup gave up the jurisdictional battle and agreed to a remand of the case back to state court. In all, the parties spent about seven months shuttling between the federal forums managing WorldCom cases. Back in state court, Citigroup simultaneously filed an original answer and a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals denied mandamus relief on the ground that Citigroup expressly waived arbitration by statements reflecting an intent to litigate the dispute. 202 S.W.3d at 483–84. The parties agree the Federal Arbitration Act applies. See 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. “[A] party waives an arbitration clause by substantially invoking the judicial process to the other party’s detriment.” Perry Homes v. Cull, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2007). Waiver is a legal question for the court based on the totality of the circumstances, and asks whether a party has substantially invoked the judicial process to an opponent’s detriment, the latter term meaning inherent unfairness caused by “a party’s attempt to have it both ways by switching between litigation and arbitration to its own advantage.” Id. at __. The court of appeals held that Citigroup expressly waived arbitration — not by its conduct transferring the case to the federal and MDL courts, but by statements in those motions suggesting it was doing so for the purposes of litigation, not arbitration. 202 S.W.3d at 484 (holding that “removal related conduct alone does not constitute waiver,” but placing reliance “primarily upon [Citigroup’s] written explanations for the removal and transfer.”). We need not decide whether the Nickells are correct that express waiver is governed by different rules than those that govern implied waiver, as we disagree that these statements rise to the level of an express waiver. Citigroup never opposed arbitration, nor did it expressly waive its arbitration rights. To the contrary, it reserved the right to request arbitration early on and so informed the Nickells. Its statements in various transfer pleadings about the case’s similarity to others already transferred, the potential savings in consolidated discovery, and the potential convenience of parties and witnesses in consolidated proceedings were required by statute to justify transfer to the MDL court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) (providing for MDL transfer of “civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact” if the transfer “will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions”). Moreover, its statements about how much discovery could be avoided by transfer to the MDL court reflect an effort to avoid litigation activity rather than duplicate it. See In re Serv. Corp. Int’l, 85 S.W.3d 171, 175 (Tex. 2002) (“Relators’ efforts in moving to dismiss and staying discovery were to avoid litigation, not participate in it.”). Additionally, we disagree with the Nickells that transfer to an MDL court is necessarily inconsistent with seeking arbitration. Arbitration is possible for consolidated actions as well as individual ones. See Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 452–53 (2003). Courts can issue inconsistent orders on arbitration just as they can on discovery or other matters that MDL courts are designed to coordinate. Thus, Citigroup’s transfer to the MDL court does not indicate it had abandoned arbitration. Because Citigroup never expressly waived or objected to arbitration, the question here is whether it impliedly waived arbitration. Citigroup’s actions and statements in requesting transfer to the MDL court are certainly factors to be considered in the totality-of-the-circumstances test. See Perry Homes, ___ S.W.3d at ___. But they cannot be taken out of the context in which they were made or the remainder of Citigroup’s litigation conduct. There is no dispute that Citigroup’s actual litigation conduct (as opposed to statements of its intentions) was limited to jurisdictional transfers, not the merits. The Nickells concede Citigroup never sent or responded to any written discovery, conducted no depositions, filed no motions (or even an answer) relating to the merits before seeking arbitration, and engaged in no litigation conduct whatsoever other than transferring the case to the federal and MDL courts. In these circumstances, Citigroup’s statements about what discovery might be saved in the MDL court are simply not enough to show substantial invocation of the judicial process. Finally, the Nickells argue their contracts bind them to arbitration with Citigroup’s predecessors but not Citigroup. But each contract here specifically stated that its provisions “shall inure to the benefit of Smith Barney’s present organization, and any successor organization or assigns.” Citigroup established (and the Nickells do not dispute) that it is a successor organization to Smith Barney, and thus fell heir to the Nickells’ contracts and the arbitration clauses within them. Because the Nickells failed to show Citigroup waived its contractual right to arbitration, we conditionally grant Citigroup’s petition for writ of mandamus without hearing oral argument, see Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c), and direct the trial court to compel arbitration. We are confident that the trial court will promptly comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not. OPINION DELIVERED: May 16, 2008 ============ Full case style: IN RE CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. (F/K/A SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC.), CITIGROUP, INC., AND STACY OELSEN; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-05-01430-CV, 200 S.W.3d 742, 06-28-06) Without hearing oral argument, the Texas Supreme Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. RELATED LINKS: 2008 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | Tex. 2008 arbitration decisions | Mandamus Decisions of the Tex. Sup. Ct.

Family Code trumps CPRC provision permitting interlocutory appeal of order confirming arbitration award

Houston Court of Appeals rules that prohibition of temporary order appeals in family cases extends to order confirming an arbitration award arising from an agreement to mediate/arbitrate temporary orders issues in a pending divorce case involving children. Finding it lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court declines to reach the merits and dismisses the attempted interlocutory appeal. O P I N I O N This is an attempted appeal from an interlocutory order signed October 31, 2007, confirming an arbitration award on temporary orders entered in a pending divorce and suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). Because we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, we dismiss. Texas strongly encourages alternative dispute resolution, particularly in family law matters. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 154.002 (Vernon 2005).[1] The Family Code expressly permits binding arbitration in divorce and SAPCR cases. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. '' 6.601, 153.0071 (Vernon 2005 & Supp. 2007).[2] The parties agreed to mediate before Judge Maryellen Hicks and reached an agreed binding mediated settlement agreement (MSA) as to temporary orders pending conclusion of the divorce. The agreement provided that if any dispute arose as to the entry of the temporary orders, the dispute would be resolved in binding arbitration before Judge Hicks. Specifically, the MSA provided as follows: Said Arbitrator may decide what constitutes substantial compliance with all terms, and any omitted terms, of this Agreement that were discussed and agreed upon in the mediation. Maryellen W. Hicks may make disposing decisions concerning the language of this Order and submit the draft approved by her to the Court for signature and entry. Appellant was ordered to pay certain fees, including attorney's fees, as part of the MSA, and the parties returned to arbitration when a dispute arose over compliance with these orders. It is from the confirmation of the arbitration award ordering compliance with the temporary orders that this appeal arises.[3] Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only when expressly permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding ). Texas courts strictly construe statutes authorizing interlocutory appeals. America Online, Inc. v. Williams, 958 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ). The Texas Family Code specifically precludes the interlocutory appeal of temporary orders, except those appointing a receiver. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 6.507 (Vernon 2006); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 105.001(e) (Vernon 2006) (stating temporary orders in suits affecting the parent‑child relationship are not subject to interlocutory appeal). Because it appeared to this court that appellant is attempting to appeal temporary orders, which the Family Code expressly prohibits, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court's intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed a response to our notice, asserting that the appeal is permitted by Section 171.098 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, which provides for an appeal of an order confirming an arbitration award. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 171.098(a) (Vernon 2005). Section 311.026 of the Texas Government Code provides that when two statutes are in conflict with each other, the specific statute "prevails as an exception to the general" statute. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. ' 311.026(b) (Vernon 2005). Applying this principle, Texas courts of appeals have held that the specific Family Code provision limiting temporary order appeals controls over the general statute in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code permitting interlocutory appeals from temporary injunctions. See, e.g., Marley v. Marley, No. 01-05-00992-CV, 2006 WL 3094325, at *2 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding section 51.014(4) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code permitting appeals from temporary injunctions did not control over prohibition in section 6.502 of interlocutory appeals from temporary orders in divorce proceedings); Cook v. Cook, 886 S.W.2d 838, 839 (Tex. App.- Waco 1994, no writ) (rejecting argument that section 51.014(4) allowed an interlocutory appeal from temporary orders issued under Family Code section 3.58, the identical former version of section 6.502). Because sections 6.507 and 105.001(e) of the Family Code apply specifically to divorce and SAPCR proceedings, they prevail over the application of the general arbitration statute, section 171.098 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Appellant also asserts that the Family Code prohibition on appeals from temporary orders does not apply because the order being appealed is not an order entered under Title 1, Subchapter F of the Family Code, governing Temporary Orders, but is instead under Subchapter G, providing for alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration. This argument ignores the fact that the arbitration in this case concerned temporary orders entered during the pendency of the divorce. We hold that the trial court's order confirming a binding arbitration order entered during the pendency of a divorce and SAPCR proceeding may not be challenged by interlocutory appeal. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. PER CURIAM Judgment rendered and Opinion filed May 15, 2008. Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Boyce. [1] "It is the policy of this state to encourage the peaceable resolution of disputes, with special consideration given to disputes involving the parent‑child relationship, including the mediation of issues involving conservatorship, possession and support of children, and the early settlement of pending litigation through voluntary settlement procedures." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 154.002 (Vernon 2005). [2] "On written agreement of the parties, the court may refer a suit for dissolution of a marriage to arbitration. The agreement must state whether the arbitration is binding or nonbinding." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 6.601 (Vernon 2005); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 153.0071 (Vernon Supp. 2007) (same for a SAPCR). [3] "If the parties agree to binding arbitration, the court shall render an order reflecting the arbitrator's award.)." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 6.601(b) (Vernon 2005). "If the parties agree to binding arbitration, the court shall render an order reflecting the arbitrator's award unless the court determines at a non-jury hearing that the award is not in the best interest of the child." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 153.0071(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007) Mason v. Mason, No. 14-07-00991-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 15, 2008)(per curiam) (family court mediation and arbitration, no interlocutory appeal of order on motion to confirm arbitration award in suit affecting the parent-child relationship, divorce case) Full case style: Jason S. Mason v. Patricia A. Mason Appeal from 308th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Judge Georgia Dempster

Failure to prove existence of agreement to arbitrate warrants denial of motion to compel arbitration

Houston Court of Appeals holds that motion to compel arbitration was properly denied in the trial court where party seeking arbitration failed prove that valid arbitration agreement existed. No authenticating affidavit was filed. In Re Universal Finances Consulting Group, Inc. No. 14-08-00226-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 20, 2008)(Boyce) (Motion and mandamus petition to compel arbitration denied in the absence of proper showing that valid agreement existed)

On March 24, 2008, relators, Universal Finances Consulting Group, Inc., Zhuodao Zhao, John J. Dunn, and Universal Med-Health Services, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the Honorable Tony Lindsay, presiding judge of the 280th District Court of Harris County, to vacate her order denying their amended motion to compel arbitration and to stay the trial court proceedings. On August 16, 2007, real party in interest, Bill Cargill, filed suit against relators for the return of money he had advanced under a purported escrow agreement to obtain a standby letter of credit to fund the operations of Agri Dynamic Technology, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation formed for agricultural reclamation and development in Mexico. Relying on an arbitration provision contained in an asset purchase agreement that was referenced in the escrow agreement, relators filed a motion to compel arbitration and an amended motion for arbitration. After a hearing, respondent denied relators' amended motion to compel arbitration because the "motion is not supported by Defendants [sic] pleadings and . . . Defendants have failed to provide competent evidence in support of their motion that establishes that there is a valid arbitration agreement, . . ."To obtain mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate that (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion; and (2) there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Sw. Bell Tele. Co., 226 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). The trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that constitutes a clear and prejudicial error of law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). As to factual matters, the relator must establish that the trial court could have reached only one decision. Id. at 840. The party seeking to compel arbitration under the FAA must establish that (1) a valid arbitration agreement exists, and (2) the claims at issue fall within that agreement's scope. In re Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 514, 515 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists is a legal question subject to de novo review. In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 781 (Tex. 2006). Cargill objected that the escrow agreement and the asset purchase agreement are not authenticated and, therefore, are not competent evidence of an agreement to arbitrate. No presumption of arbitrability arises until the court has found that there is an enforceable arbitration agreement. In re Jebbia, 26 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, orig. proceeding). To compel arbitration on a summary motion, a trial court must first determine as a matter of law that the parties have agreed to arbitrate. Id. (citing Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). The evidentiary standards for a motion to compel arbitration are the same as for a motion for summary judgment. TMI, Inc. v. Brooks, 225 S.W.3d 783, 794 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (op. on reh'g). Under the summary judgment standard, copies of documents must be authenticated in order to constitute competent summary judgment evidence. Republic Nat'l Leasing Corp. v. Schindler, 717 S.W.2d 606, 607 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam). A properly sworn affidavit stating that the attached documents are true and correct copies of the original authenticates the copies so they may be considered as summary judgment evidence. Id. Here, no affidavit was submitted with either the motion to compel or the amended motion to compel authenticating the escrow agreement or the asset purchase agreement. We conclude that there is no competent evidence of an agreement to arbitrate. Because respondent could not have properly considered the escrow agreement or the asset purchase agreement, she did not abuse her discretion by denying relators' amended motion to compel arbitration. Relators have not established their entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relators' petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 20, 2008. Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Hudson.[1]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1]
Senior Justice J. Harvey Hudson sitting by assignment. In Re Universal Finances Consulting Group, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 20, 2008)(Boyce) (arbitration mandamus, motion to compel arbitration properly denied)(Opinion by Justice Bill Boyce) Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Hudson and Boyce 14-08-00226-CV In Re Universal Finances Consulting Group, Inc., Zhuodao Zhoa, John J. Dunn, and Universal Med-Health Services, Inc. Appeal from 280th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Tony Lindsay

Aspen Technology, Inc. v. Shasha (Tex.App. - Houston March 2008)

An employer and its employee entered into two arbitration agreements - one in which they did not specify the arbitration rules, arbitration site, or number of arbitrators and a subsequent agreement in which they specified a three-arbitrator panel in Boston, Massachusetts, in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The trial court compelled arbitration in Houston, Texas, before a single arbitrator under the first agreement but refused to compel arbitration under the second agreement, impliedly ruling that the second agreement is illusory and substantively unconscionable. The Houston Court of Appeals concludes that mandamus relief is warranted and directs the trial court to vacate its orders compelling arbitration under the first agreement and to issue an order compelling arbitration under the second agreement. Given this ruling, the employer's interlocutory appeal is rendered moot. Aspen Technology, Inc. vs. Abe Shasha , In re Aspen Technology, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 27, 2008) (Opinion by Justice Kem Thompson Frost) (interlocutory appeal dismissed, arbitration mandamus granted) Appellate court: First Court of Appeals in Houston --> See more March 2008 Opinions Cause Nos: No. 14-07-00303-CV , No. 14-07-00469-CV Appeal from 165th District Court of Harris County, Texas (Houston) Trial Court Judge: District Court Judge Hon. Elizabeth Ray O P I N I O N An employer and its employee entered into two arbitration agreements C one in which they did not specify the arbitration rules, arbitration site, or number of arbitrators and a subsequent agreement in which they specified a three-arbitrator panel in Boston, Massachusetts, in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The trial court compelled arbitration in Houston, Texas, before a single arbitrator under the first agreement but refused to compel arbitration under the second agreement, impliedly ruling that the second agreement is illusory and substantively unconscionable. We conclude mandamus relief is warranted. For the reasons explained below, we direct the trial court to vacate its orders compelling arbitration under the first agreement and to issue an order compelling arbitration under the second agreement. Given this ruling, the employer's interlocutory appeal is rendered moot. I. Factual and Procedural Background Appellee/real party in interest Abe Shasha began his employment in December 2001, with the predecessor of appellant/relator Aspen Technology, Inc. At that time, Shasha signed an agreement regarding his employment, in which he and Aspen’s predecessor agreed to arbitrate any and all disputes or controversies that might arise between Shasha and Aspen’s predecessor, including without limitation employment disputes (hereinafter “2001 Agreement”). On October 28, 2005, Shasha signed an agreement regarding his incentive compensation for Aspen fiscal year 2006 (hereinafter “2006 Agreement”). In the 2006 Agreement, Shasha agreed that any legal action against Aspen would be settled exclusively by arbitration before a three-member panel in Boston, Massachusetts in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter “AAA”). Early in 2006, Shasha notified Aspen that he had a dispute regarding his commissions. In May 2006, Shasha resigned from his position with Aspen and soon thereafter filed suit against Aspen in the trial court below asserting contract and tort claims. Aspen filed a motion to compel arbitration, relying on both the 2001 Agreement and the 2006 Agreement. In response, Shasha admitted that he executed both the 2001 Agreement and the 2006 Agreement. Shasha argued that the arbitration provision in the 2006 Agreement replaced the arbitration provision in the 2001 Agreement. Shasha did not dispute that his claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement; rather, Shasha asserted that this arbitration clause is unenforceable because (1) the clause is illusory given that Aspen allegedly retains a unilateral, unrestricted right to terminate this arbitration agreement; and (2) the clause imposes such exorbitant costs on Shasha that it is substantively unconscionable. The trial court granted Aspen’s motion to compel, ordered all claims to arbitration, and stayed the case pending the conclusion of the arbitration. However, the trial court’s first order did not specify the site for the arbitration or the agreement under which the trial court ordered the parties to arbitrate the claims. Confusion arose as to whether the trial court had ordered arbitration under the 2006 Agreement. Aspen asserted that the trial court had ordered the parties to arbitrate the claims in Boston, Massachusetts, under the 2006 Agreement. Shasha filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification. In this motion, Shasha stated that the trial court’s order was ambiguous as to whether the trial court had compelled the parties to arbitrate the claims under the 2001 Agreement or under the 2006 Agreement. Shasha asserted that he had no issue with the court to the extent it intended to compel arbitration under the 2001 Agreement. However, to the extent the trial court had ordered arbitration under the 2006 Agreement, Shasha moved the court to reconsider its rejection of the two grounds upon which Shasha had asserted that this arbitration agreement is unenforceable. Shasha requested the trial court to order the parties to arbitration under the 2001 Agreement in Houston, Texas, with a single arbitrator. Aspen filed a response in opposition in which it argued that no clarification was necessary because the trial court already had ordered the parties to arbitrate in Boston, Massachusetts, under the 2006 Agreement. Aspen again presented argument in support of its position that there is no merit in Shasha’s two objections to the enforceability of the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement. Aspen asserted that the Federal Arbitration Act (“Federal Act”) and the Texas Arbitration Act (“Texas Act”) both mandate that Shasha’s claims be arbitrated in Boston, Massachusetts before a panel of three arbitrators pursuant to the commercial arbitration rules of the AAA (“Commercial Rules”) and that the proceedings in the trial court be stayed pending completion of arbitration. Aspen submitted to the trial court a proposed order denying Shasha’s motion. In this proposed order, the trial court would compel arbitration in Boston, Massachusetts, before a panel of three arbitrators pursuant to the Commercial Rules and stay the proceedings in the trial court until the conclusion of the arbitration. Instead of signing this proposed order, the trial court signed an order in which it granted Shasha’s motion and compelled arbitration in Houston, Texas, with a single arbitrator under the 2001 Agreement. Aspen has appealed this order under section 171.098(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 171.098(a)(1) (Vernon 2005). Aspen also filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court has consolidated these two proceedings. II. Standard of Review The Federal Act applies to an arbitration agreement in any contract involving interstate commerce, to the full extent of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. See 9 U. S. C. ' 2 (1999); Allied-Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 277-81, 115 S. Ct. 834, 839-41, 130 L. Ed. 2d 753 (1995); In re L&L Kempwood Assocs., 9 S.W.3d 125, 127 (Tex. 2006). Shasha does not dispute that the Federal Act applies. The 2001 Agreement and the 2006 Agreement both involve interstate commerce, and therefore, the Federal Act applies. Mandamus relief is available when the trial court clearly abuses its discretion by erroneously denying a party its contracted for arbitration rights under the Federal Act. See In re D. Wilson Const. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 780-81 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding); In re Igloo Prods. Corp., 238 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). Therefore, Aspen’s right to mandamus relief hinges on whether the trial court erred by refusing to compel arbitration under the 2006 Agreement.[1] On mandamus review of factual issues, a trial court will be held to have abused its discretion only if the party requesting mandamus relief establishes that the trial court reasonably could have reached only one decision, and not the decision the trial court made. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus review of issues of law is less deferential. A trial court abuses its discretion if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005). In construing the 2006 Agreement, our primary concern is to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in the contract. Kelley Coppedge, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 980 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex. 1998). To ascertain the parties’ true intentions, we examine the entire agreement in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Tex. Utils. Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d 647, 652 (Tex. 1999). Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court. Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996). A contract is ambiguous when its meaning is uncertain and doubtful or is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. Id. However, when a written contract is worded such that it can be given a certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation, it is unambiguous, and the court construes it as a matter of law. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154, 157 (Tex. 2003). III. Issues and Analysis A. Does this court lack mandamus jurisdiction because the trial court did not deny a motion to compel arbitration? Shasha first argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Aspen’s mandamus petition because the trial court allegedly did not deny Aspen’s application to compel arbitration. According to Shasha, Aspen moved to compel arbitration under either the 2001 Agreement or the 2006 Agreement, and the trial court granted this request by compelling arbitration under the 2001 Agreement. Though Aspen based its motion to compel on both agreements, in response to Shasha’s motion for reconsideration and clarification, Aspen relied on the 2006 Agreement and requested the trial court to order arbitration of Shasha’s claims in Boston, before a panel of three arbitrators pursuant to the Commercial Rules. The trial court refused to do so, and instead, it ordered the parties to arbitrate the claims in Houston, with a single arbitrator under the 2001 Agreement. Mandamus relief is available if a trial court abuses its discretion by erroneously denying a party its contracted for arbitration rights under the Federal Act. See In re D. Wilson Const. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 780-81. Impliedly finding that the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement is illusory and substantively unconscionable, the trial court denied Aspen its contracted for arbitration rights under the 2006 Agreement, which is governed by the Federal Act. Therefore, this court has mandamus jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion in so ruling. See In re D. Wilson Const. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 780-81. B. Did the trial court err by concluding that the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement is illusory? Shasha asserted in the trial court that the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement is illusory because Aspen allegedly retains a unilateral, unrestricted right to terminate this arbitration agreement. If one party to an arbitration agreement retains such a right, then the arbitration agreement is illusory and unenforceable. See In re Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 672, 677 (Tex. 2006). Shasha asserts that Aspen retains a unilateral, unrestricted right to terminate the arbitration provision in the 2006 Agreement based on the following language in that agreement: The incentive compensation plan administrator (Vice President of Worldwide Sales Operations) is responsible for the interpretation of the plan. If the meaning or interpretation of the plan wording requires clarification after consideration of all the facts, the Senior Vice President, Worldwide Sales and Business Development (SVP Sales) or his/her designee(s), if any[,] will issue a written ruling, which will be final. In addition, the SVP Sales will be responsible for the periodic review of the plan and may make revisions from time to time. (emphasis added). The title of the 2006 Agreement is “Aspen Technology, Inc. FY 2006 Incentive Compensation Plan Global Account Manager (GAM).” In the 2006 Agreement, there is no definition of the term “plan.” Shasha asserts that, under the above language, the SVP Sales may make revisions to the 2006 Agreement from time to time. Presuming that the above language refers to the 2006 Agreement as “the plan,” and presuming that the SVP Sales may review the 2006 Agreement and make revisions from time to time, this is not equivalent to stating that the SVP Sales has a unilateral, unrestricted right to terminate the arbitration provision in the 2006 Agreement. Under the 2006 Agreement, “[a]ny additional terms or conditions, or verbal or written agreements between [Shasha] and [Aspen] will not apply unless explicitly agreed to and approved in a signed writing by both the SVP Sales and [Shasha].” We conclude that, under the unambiguous language of the 2006 Agreement, Aspen does not retain a unilateral, unrestricted right to modify or terminate the arbitration provision in that agreement; therefore, that arbitration provision, as a matter of law, is not illusory. See In re Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 514, 516 (Tex. 2006) (holding that arbitration agreement did not give employer unilateral, unrestricted right to modify the arbitration agreement). The cases on which Shasha relies are not on point. See J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 228B30 (Tex. 2003) (concluding that it was unclear whether employer retained unilateral right to terminate arbitration agreement without notice in case in which agreement stated that the employer “reserves the right to unilaterally abolish or modify any personnel policy without prior notice”); In re C & H News Co., 133 S.W.3d 642, 646 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 2003, orig. proceeding) (concluding agreement was illusory because it contained provision giving employer the ability to modify or delete provisions as the employer deems appropriate, with or without prior notification to employees); Tenet Healthcare Ltd. v. Cooper, 960 S.W.2d 386, 386-88 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (holding arbitration agreement contained in employee handbook was not supported by consideration, in case in which handbook stated that (1) it was not intended to constitute a legal contract with any employee because that could only occur with a written agreement executed by a facility executive director and (2) the employer reserved the right to amend or rescind any provision of the handbook as it deemed appropriate in its sole and absolute discretion). Therefore, the trial court clearly abused its discretion to the extent it concluded that the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement is illusory. C. Did the trial court err by concluding that the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement is substantively unconscionable? Shasha asserted in the trial court that the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement imposes such exorbitant costs on him that it is substantively unconscionable. Under certain circumstances, arbitration costs could be so high that they preclude a litigant from effectively vindicating his rights through arbitration. See Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 90-92, 121 S. Ct. 513, 522-23, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000). A party seeking to invalidate an arbitration agreement on the ground that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive bears the burden of providing specific evidence showing a likelihood that he would incur excessive arbitration costs. See Green Tree Fin. Corp., 531 U.S. at 90-92, 121 S. Ct. at 522-23; In re U.S. Home Corp., 236 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tex. 2007); In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Tex. 2001); TMI, Inc. v. Brooks, 225 S.W.3d 783, 796 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). The 2006 Agreement is silent as to arbitration costs. In the trial court Shasha offered an affidavit from one of his lawyers. In this affidavit, Shasha’s counsel testifies, in pertinent part, to the following: ● Based on his personal knowledge of the Commercial Rules and the AAA employment arbitration rules (“Employment Rules”), claims arbitrated under the Commercial Rules are significantly more costly to the employee/claimant than claims arbitrated under the Employment Rules. This is because under the Employment Rules, the employee/claimant is only responsible for a filing fee of $50-150; whereas under the Commercial Rules, the employee/claimant is responsible for the filing fee, the case service fee, and one-half of all the arbitrator fees unless the arbitration agreement states otherwise. ● The AAA’s filing fee for this case would be $4,250, and the AAA case service fee would be $1,750. The AAA administration fee would be $325. Although arbitrator fees vary for each arbitrator, a “median estimate” is $305.50 per hour for each arbitrator based on ten arbitrator resumes for the Boston area from the AAA website. A conservative estimate of total arbitrator fees based on four days of work per arbitrator is $24,000 (32 hours x $250/hour per arbitrator). ● Shasha’s air fare and hotel costs for an arbitration in Boston would be at least $2,700. Presuming that arbitrations under the Commercial Rules are significantly more costly than arbitrations under the Employment Rules, this testimony alone does not provide specific evidence as to Shasha’s likely costs to arbitrate under the 2006 Agreement. Though Shasha’s counsel provides projected fees for filing with the AAA, AAA case service, and AAA administration, this projection is based on the premise that the AAA would administer the arbitration.[2] However, the arbitration provision in the 2006 Agreement does not require that the AAA conduct or administer the arbitration; rather the provision states that arbitration shall be Ain accordance with the [Commercial Rules].” Under this language, the AAA may administer the arbitration, but the parties are not required to have the arbitration administered by the AAA. See TMI, Inc., 225 S.W.3d at 797. Although the party seeking to compel arbitration in TMI, Inc. presented evidence that arbitration under the same arbitration provision was available by a non-AAA arbitrator at a cost significantly lower that the costs of a AAA arbitration, such proof is not necessary for Shasha to be required to make a factual showing that the AAA would administer the arbitration. See Green Tree Fin. Corp., 531 U.S. at 90 n.6, 121 S. Ct. at 522 n.6 (concluding that party asserting substantive unconscionability could not carry her burden of proof based on AAA fees unless she, made a factual showing, among other things, that the AAA would administer the arbitration). As to arbitrator fees, again, Shasha’s projected fees appear to be based on fees charged by AAA arbitrators. In addition, Shasha’s counsel testifies that, under the Commercial Rules, absent agreement by the parties, Shasha must pay half of the arbitrator fees. However, under the Commercial Rules attached to counsel’s affidavit, the arbitration panel in its final award shall apportion the arbitration fees, expenses, and compensation among the parties in such amounts as the panel determines is appropriate. We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court’s implied finding that Shasha satisfied his burden of providing specific evidence showing a likelihood that he would be denied access to arbitration based on excessive arbitration costs. See Green Tree Fin. Corp., 531 U.S. at 90-92, 121 S. Ct. at 522-23; In re U.S. Home Corp., 236 S.W.3d at 764; In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d at 756-57; TMI, Inc., 225 S.W.3d at 796. On the record before it, the only finding the trial court could have made was that Shasha did not satisfy this burden. By impliedly ruling to the contrary, the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In addition, even presuming that the AAA would administer the arbitration and that the arbitration costs and fees would be allocated equally by the arbitration panel, Shasha’s counsel projected aggregate costs and fees of $30,325, which would make Shasha’s portion $15,162.50. Presuming that the extra expense of traveling to Boston for the arbitration is $2,700 (the figure stated in the affidavit of Shasha’s counsel) the total financial burden on Shasha would be $17,862.50. However, Shasha is asserting a claim of between $300,000 and $500,000, and Shasha’s base salary, without commissions, when he entered into the 2006 Agreement was $120,000. Though Shasha provided his own affidavit, in which he states that the costs of pursuing his claim through arbitration in Boston under the 2006 Agreement would be extraordinary, oppressive, unaffordable, and would deprive him of the opportunity to litigate his claim, these conclusory statements are legally insufficient. See, e.g., Green Tree Fin. Corp., 531 U.S. at 90 n.6, 121 S. Ct. at 522 n.6 (concluding that party’s unsupported statement that she did not have the resources to pay the high costs of arbitration was insufficient). Shasha does state that he is currently paying for the university studies of his three children and that since he stopped working at Aspen he has been unable to find “equivalent fixed income work.” However, we determine substantive unconscionability based on the circumstances existing when the parties entered into the contract in October 2005, and Shasha provided no evidence as to his finances or ability to pay $17,862.50 at this time.[3] See In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d at 757. Under the applicable standard of review, we conclude that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by impliedly ruling that the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement is substantively unconscionable.[4] IV. Conclusion The Federal Act governs the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement. Therefore, this court has mandamus jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court erred in denying Aspen its contracted for arbitration rights under the 2006 Agreement. The trial court clearly abused its discretion (1) by impliedly finding that the arbitration clause in the 2006 Agreement is illusory; (2) by impliedly finding that the clause is substantively unconscionable; and (3) by refusing to order the parties to arbitrate the claims under the 2006 Agreement. Accordingly, we conditionally grant a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its orders compelling arbitration under the 2001 Agreement and to issue an order (1) compelling arbitration under the 2006 Agreement before a three-arbitrator panel in Boston, Massachusetts, in accordance with the Commercial Rules and (2) staying the proceedings in the trial court pending completion of arbitration. We are confident the respected trial judge will comply with this opinion. Only in the unlikely event she fails to do so will the writ issue. Because we have granted this mandamus relief, we dismiss Aspen’s interlocutory appeal as moot. /s/ Kem Thompson Frost Justice Judgment rendered and Opinion filed March 27, 2008. Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Frost. [1] In 1992, addressing whether a party is entitled to mandamus relief for wrongful denial of its arbitration rights under an agreement subject to the Federal Act, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that the Texas Act does not provide such a party the ability to assert an interlocutory appeal. See Jack B. Anglin, Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272-73 (Tex. 1992). In 2006, the Texas Supreme Court decided that such a party can file an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration under an agreement governed by the Federal Act. See In re D. Wilson Const. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 778-80 (Tex. 2006). It might appear that Aspen is not entitled to mandamus relief in this case because the Federal Act governs the Agreement and, under In re D. Wilson Const. Co., Aspen has an adequate remedy at law by interlocutory appeal. See id. However, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed in In re D. Wilson Const. Co. that mandamus relief remains available when a party is erroneously denied its contracted‑for arbitration rights under the Federal Act. See In re D. Wilson Const. Co., 196 S.W.3d at 780-81. Therefore, we conclude that mandamus relief is still potentially available to Aspen. [2] Shasha's counsel attaches a copy of the Commercial Rules and the fee schedule for arbitrations conducted by the AAA, but the AAA fee schedule is not part of the Commercial Rules. [3] In any event, Shasha did not provide specific evidence in his affidavit that would prove his present ability to pay this amount. [4] Shasha relies on In re Luna, 175 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding [mand. pending]). We are not bound by In re Luna, and, in any event, in that case, there was evidence establishing that arbitration would force the former employee to pay fees that amounted to one-half of his annual compensation. See In re Luna, 175 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding [mand. pending]). Therefore, In re Luna is not on point.

In Re MHI Partnership, Ltd. (Tex.App.- Houston Apr. 23, 2008)

Homeowners required to arbitrate claims against builder. In this original proceeding, relator MHI Partnership, Ltd. seeks a writ of mandamus directing the presiding judge of the 11th District Court of Harris County, Texas, to vacate an order denying MHI's motion to compel arbitration. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals, in an opinion written by one of its newest members, Hon. Bill Boyce, conditionally grants the writ. In Re MHI Partnership, Ltd., No. 14-07-00851-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] April 23, 2008) (homeowners compelled to arbitrate contamination claims against builder) Appellate Court: Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, TX ---> See more April 2008 Opinions Appellate Panel's Opinion by Justice William Boyce Panel composition: Chief Justice Adele Hedges, Justice John Anderson, and Justice Bill Boyce Full style: In Re: MHI Partnership, LTD.Appeal from 11th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Mark Davidson Disposition: Writ of Mandamus Compelling Arbitration Conditionally Granted Links: Houston arbitration case law Houston Texas construction case law homeowner cases From the opinion: Homeowners have not established that the arbitration agreements are so burdensome as to render them substantively unconscionable. Unconscionability of the Arbitration Agreements as a Whole The homeowners argue the cumulative effect of the provisions in the arbitration agreements renders the agreements unconscionable. Texas courts must consider the arbitration agreement as a whole. In re Luna 175 S.W.3d at 328; see also Pony Express Courier Corp. v. Morris, 921 S.W.2d 817, 822 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (per curiam) (trial court abused its discretion by determining unconscionability without sufficient facts before the court to determining if agreement was unconscionable as a whole). Because we already have rejected the homeowners' arguments, we cannot say the arbitration agreements are unconscionable as a whole. Conclusion We hold the trial court abused its discretion in denying MHI's motion to compel arbitration. We therefore conditionally grant the petition for a writ of mandamus, and direct the trial court vacate its order denying MHI's motion to compel arbitration. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion.

Divorce Decree Did Not Vary from MSA and Arbitration Award

Houston Court of Appeals rejects wife's challenges to final decree of divorce; affirms trial court on finding that the decree reflected and gave effect to the underlying agreement and arbitration award. Engineer v. Engineer No. 14-06-01099-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 20, 2008)(substituted opinion by Justice Charles Seymore) (decree not at variance from mediated settlement agreement and arbitration award) (multiple appeals, judgment based on MSA, arbitration award) Katy Engineer v. Mike Engineer Appeal from 387th District Court of Fort Bend County Trial court judge: Hon. Robert J. Kern S U B S T I T U T E M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant's motion for rehearing is overruled. This court's opinion issued January 15, 2008 is withdrawn and the following memorandum opinion is substituted therefor. In this divorce action, Katy Engineer appeals the amended divorce decree on the grounds that the decree does not accurately reflect the mediated settlement agreement and the arbitration award. Our disposition is based on clearly settled law. Accordingly, we issue this memorandum opinion and affirm. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. I. Background Katy and Mike Engineer were divorced on September 16, 2002. Katy appealed the final divorce decree on the grounds that the decree did not incorporate all of the provisions of the mediated settlement agreement and arbitration award. In an opinion issued January 31, 2006, this court found the alimony provision in the decree differed from language in the agreement and the December 4, 2001 arbitration award that was incorporated into the decree did not address the alimony provision. Engineer v. Engineer, 187 S.W.3d 625, 626 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). This court sustained Katy's challenge to the alimony provision in the decree and further determined that it did not need to address her other challenges. Id. at 627. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Id. On remand, the trial court signed a document entitled, "Final Decree of Divorce After Remand." In that document, the trial court amended the parties' divorce decree to conform to the December 4, 2001 arbitration award as it pertained to contractual taxable alimony. In this appeal, Katy contends the trial court erred in failing to further amend the divorce decree to address other portions of the arbitration award, specifically provisions relating to gold coins, savings bonds, and the place where alimony payments should be sent. II. Scope of Remand Initially, Katy argues the trial court failed to follow this court's mandate because the trial court corrected only the alimony provision in the decree. Mike responds that the trial court did not err in failing to address the provisions, which are the subject of Katy's complaints, because this court remanded the case only to permit the trial court to amend the decree with regard to the contractual alimony. In our first opinion, we reversed and remanded "for proceedings in accordance with the court's opinion." When an appellate court reverses and remands a case for further proceedings, and the mandate is not limited by special instructions, the effect is to remand the case to the lower court on all issues of fact, and the case is reopened in its entirety. Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986); Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. Johnson, 167 S.W.3d 460, 465 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). Neither our opinion nor mandate, provide special instructions to the trial court upon remand; therefore, the case was reopened in its entirety. See Manon v. Solis, 142 S.W.3d 380, 386 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). The issue before us, therefore, is whether the decree of divorce after remand accurately incorporates the arbitration award. III. Arbitration Award Katy argues that the final arbitration award is the proposed "Final Decree of Divorce" submitted to the trial court by the arbitrator on July 23, 2002. Mike argues that the final arbitration award is a document entitled, "Final Arbitration Award" signed by the arbitrator on December 4, 2001. In its conclusions of law, the trial court found that the arbitrator's "proposed final decree of divorce submitted on July 23, 2002 was not considered an arbitration award, implicating the procedures of Chapter 171 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code."[1] In remanding the case to the trial court, this court referred to the December 4, 2001 arbitration award as the operative document. Therefore, in order to address Katy's issues, we will determine whether the final divorce decree incorporates the provisions of the December 4, 2001 arbitration award. IV. Provisions of the Decree The trial court must make a just and right division of marital property in a divorce proceeding. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Section 7.001 (Vernon 1998). To promote the amicable settlement of disputes in a suit for divorce, spouses may enter into a written agreement concerning the division of the property and the liabilities of the spouses and maintenance of either spouse. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Section 7.006 (a)-(c) (Vernon 1998). If the court finds that the terms of such an agreement are just and right, those terms are binding on the court. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Section 7.006(b). If the trial court approves the agreement, the court may set forth the agreement in full or incorporate it by reference in the final decree. Id. Conversely, if the court finds that the terms of the agreement are not just and right, it may either request the spouses to submit a revised agreement or set the case for a contested hearing. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Section 7.006(c). Therefore, a court may either enter a property division agreement in its entirety or decline to enter it all, but has no discretion to change the agreement before entering it. See Engineer, 187 S.W.3d at 626; Reppert v. Beasley, 943 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 1997, no pet.). In this case, the agreement provided that disputes concerning interpretation or performance of the agreement would be submitted to binding arbitration. In unchallenged conclusions of law, the trial court found that the decree incorporates the agreement as modified and clarified in arbitration and as thereafter corrected and/or modified by the court upon proper pleadings and proof. Katy complains that the trial court erred in failing to accurately incorporate the agreement into the divorce decree. Specifically, Katy argues the provisions addressing allocation of the gold coins and savings bonds were inaccurately incorporated. Further, Katy complains that provisions in the decree regarding the place for alimony payments do not reflect the arbitration award. A. Gold Coins Attached to the arbitration award are three exhibits listing the community property awarded to each spouse and the property awarded to Katy as custodian for the parties' son. The gold coins are listed in the property awarded to Mike and are described as the "[g]old coins purchased and stored in the family safety deposit box." The final divorce decree awards the following property to the husband: "All household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, art objects, collectibles, appliances, and equipment in the possession of the husband or subject to his sole control, including but not limited to any gold coins purchased and stored in the family safety deposit box . . . said coins to be delivered to Mike Engineer by (6/5/03) to M. Carden's office." Katy first argues that the trial court erred in the divorce decree by not including a provision that she was to relinquish the gold coins "should they be in existence." Katy bases her argument on the arbitrator's proposed final decree submitted to the court on July 23, 2002. As stated earlier, that document was not recognized by the trial court as an arbitration award. The arbitration award used by the trial court in preparing the final divorce decree did not establish a procedure or qualify the distribution of the gold coins. Second, Katy complains of the trial court's inclusion of specific terms requiring her to deliver the gold coins to Mike, contending that this language improperly imposes an affirmative obligation that the arbitrator did not impose. The Family Code does not require parties to agree to all of the provisions to be contained in the divorce decree. The law only requires the parties to reach an agreement as to all material terms and prohibits the trial court from supplying additional terms. Haynes v. Haynes, 180 S.W.3d 927, 930 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2006, no pet.). Terms necessary to effectuate and implement the parties' agreement do not affect the agreed substantive division of property and may be left to future articulation by the parties or consideration by the trial court. Id. In this case, the terms requiring Katy to deliver the gold coins on a date certain to a specific location are properly denominated as essential to effectuate and implement the agreement that Mike will receive the gold coins. Therefore, with regard to the gold coins, the arbitration award was accurately incorporated in the decree. B. Savings Bonds Katy alleges that the decree varies from the arbitration award in the distribution of savings bonds. In the December 4, 2001 document, the arbitrator awarded "U. S. Series EE Savings Bonds Approximate value $18,608.00" to Katy. The arbitrator further awarded "EE Series Savings Bonds Approximate value $25,000.00" to Katy as custodian for the parties' child. In the corrected final divorce decree, the "US Series EE Savings Bonds" were awarded to the parties' child "with Katy Engineer trustee." The decree then listed the bonds by number. The decree did not award any savings bonds to Katy individually. On October 23, 2002, the trial court signed a final decree of divorce, which awarded "US Series EE Savings Bonds B approximate value of $18,608.00" and "EE Series Savings Bonds No. M39388208EE to M39388216EE & M39531538EE" to Katy. The October 23, 2002, decree failed to award any savings bonds to Katy as custodian for the child. Katy thereafter filed a motion to modify the decree, which included a request that the trial court correct the decree as to the bonds awarded to her, and the bonds awarded to her as custodian for the child. On January 22, 2003, the trial court signed an order modifying the divorce decree. The order recites that a hearing was held on December 18, 2002, but no record of the hearing appears in our appellate record. A letter from the trial court signed on December 27, 2002, reflects that as a result of the hearing, the parties agreed to certain changes in the decree. One of the referenced changes is, "[S]eries EE bonds should be awarded to [the child], with Wife as Trustee." The trial court's January 22, 2003 order reflects that agreement. On appeal, Katy contends that the decree incorrectly awarded all the bonds to the parties' child with her as trustee. Katy does not assert that the trial court's recitation of an agreement is incorrect, but argues that even if she agreed to the change, the trial court was without authority to change the arbitrator's award. Section 7.006(a) of the Family Code specifically provides that the parties' agreement "may be revised or repudiated before rendition of the divorce or annulment unless the agreement is binding under another rule of law." While the trial court has no authority to supply terms, provisions, or conditions not previously agreed to by the parties, conversely, the parties are bound by their agreements. See McLendon, 847 S.W.2d at 610. Katy cannot agree to a change in the agreement, then complain on appeal about that change. See Keith v. Keith, 221 S.W.3d 156, 163 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (appellant may not complain on appeal of an action or ruling to which she agreed). Therefore, with regard to the savings bonds, the divorce decree accurately reflects the parties' agreement. C. Alimony Payments Katy argues that the final decree varies from the arbitration award in that the decree permits Mike to pay alimony at her residence instead of depositing the amount in her checking account. Katy further argues that the decree does not provide security for the alimony as required by the arbitration award. Again, Katy relies on the July 23, 2002 document, which is not an arbitration award. The December 4, 2001 arbitration award is silent with regard to alimony. However, the parties' mediated settlement agreement provides that Achild support [and] alimony to be obligation of H[usband]'s estate. The "Final Divorce Decree After Remand" provides that Mike is to pay contractual alimony of $4000 per month to Katy at her residence. The decree further provides that alimony is to be secured by Mike's 401(k) plan. Although the mediated settlement agreement required Mike to pay Katy alimony, the parties did not agree to the manner and place of payment. The trial court was authorized to include terms in the decree to implement the parties' agreement, specifying the manner and place of payment of alimony. See McLendon v. McLendon, 847 S.W.2d 601, 606 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1992, writ denied). Further, contrary to Katy's assertion, the decree provided that alimony payments would be secured by Mike's 401(k) plan. Therefore, the trial court did not err by including delivery instructions pertaining to alimony in the decree. In conclusion, the final divorce decree does not vary from the terms of the mediated settlement agreement or the arbitration award. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. /s/ Charles W. Seymore Justice Judgment rendered and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed March 20, 2008. Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Seymore. [1] Chapter 171 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code generally prescribes the necessary requirements for a valid arbitration agreement.