CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On March 26, 2000, Gwendolyn and Kevin Alford entered into a contract that contained an arbitration clause with Woodhaven Partners to build a house on 314 Raintree Street. On Oct. 4, the Alfords then entered into an agreement to purchase a different home at 316 Raintree Street. Woodhaven Inc., an independent contractor for the Woodhaven Partners limited partnership, gave the Alfords a limited warranty that tried to disclaim the warranties of habitability and good and workmanlike construction. Neither the purchase agreement nor the limited warranty contained arbitration clauses. After noticing several problems with the house, the Alfords sued Woodhaven Inc. for breach of warranties. Woodhaven Partners intervened, then moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, and Woodhaven Partners appeals. HOLDING:Affirmed. Neither the Oct. 4 agreement nor the limited warranty contain arbitration clauses, and neither incorporate the March 26 agreement. A notation that the Alfords paid earnest money on March 26 does not make the Oct. 4 agreement an addendum to the March 26 contract. The two documents cannot be read together because, in order to do that, the two must refer to each other or to the same subject matter. They do not involve the same transaction, in part because they address two different pieces of property, only one of which the Alfords actually purchased. The court also rejects Woodhaven Inc.’s argument that it can compel arbitration through equitable estoppel. A non-signatory can compel arbitration where misconduct has been alleged on the part of both the signatory and the non-signatory. Also, arbitration can be compelled where the signatory relies on the agreement in asserting claims against the non-signatory. Neither situation exists here, the court rules. The Alfords’ claims are against Woodhaven Inc. related to the limited warranty on the house they actually purchased; only the Alfords and Woodhaven Inc. are signatories. The agreement between Woodhaven Partners and the Alfords is not at issue, as it involves a different house. The Alfords to not need to rely on the terms of that agreement to pursue their claims against Woodhaven Inc. OPINION:Wright, J.; Morris, Wright and Richter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.