Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In dual proceedings, appellants/relators, Rick Bates, Marianne Bates, and Dorothy Bates (“Bates”), challenge the trial court’s order that granted appellees/real parties in interest, MTH Homes-Texas, L.P. d/b/a Hammonds Homes and Meritage Corp.’s, motion to compel arbitration. On Jan. 26, 2004, Bates filed suit against Hammonds because of defects sustained during the construction of Bates’s new home. On Sept. 9, 2004, Hammonds filed a motion to compel arbitration based on a clause in an earnest-money contract addendum. On Sept. 28, 2004, the trial court granted the motion to compel. Bates filed both an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s order. On Jan. 21, 2005, this court stayed the trial court’s arbitration order. HOLDING:The court dismisses the interlocutory appeal in appellate cause number 01-04-01086-CV for want of jurisdiction. The court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus in appellate cause number 01-04-01156-CV and order the trial court to vacate its Sept. 28, 2004, order granting the motion to compel arbitration of the real parties in interest. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order. The court withdraws the Jan. 21, 2005, order staying all proceedings in the trial court. In its motion to compel arbitration, Hammonds relied on the following clause of the earnest money contract addendum to show the parties’ intent to arbitrate: “This contract is subject to chapter 27 of the Texas Property Code. The provisions of that chapter may affect the purchaser’s right to recover damages arising from the performance of this contract. if purchaser has a complaint concerning a construction defect arising from the performance of this contract and that defect has not been corrected through normal warranty service, the purchaser must provide notice regarding the defect to the builder by certified mail, return receipt requested, not later than the 60th day before the date the purchaser initiates a claim to recover damages in an arbitration proceeding. the notice must refer to chapter 27 of the texas property code, and must describe the construction defect. if requested by the builder, the purchaser must provide the builder an opportunity to inspect and cure the defect as provided by section 27.004 of the texas property code.” Hammonds argues that this clause shows that the parties intended to waive the right to a trial and instead to resolve any disputes through binding arbitration. Hammonds contends that if the parties had intended something other than arbitration, they would have used language such as “court of law,” instead of “arbitration proceeding.” The court disagrees that this language is sufficiently “express, plain, clear, and certain” to evince the agreement of the parties to delegate to arbitrators the power to decide disputes between them. The clause in the earnest money contract addendum on which Hammonds relies is not a traditional arbitration clause. Rather, it is substantially similar to the statutorily mandated disclosure statement provided for in former section 27.007 of the Texas Property Code. Texas Property Code �27.007 is entitled, “Disclosure Statement Required.” The clause required pursuant to �27.007 and the one at issue here both instruct the buyer regarding the giving of notice of construction defects to the seller. Although the clause in the earnest money contract addendum refers to arbitration, it does not limit the parties’ rights to arbitration only. Rather, the clause — a statutorily required disclosure statement — provides the notice procedures to follow if a party seeks damages in an arbitration proceeding. The court concludes that the clause on which Hammonds relies, although it includes the word “arbitration,” is not sufficient to constitute an agreement to arbitrate because it does not clearly indicate the intent to arbitrate. Thus, contrary to Hammonds’ argument, the parties did not expressly agree in writing in the clause at issue to submit the dispute to arbitration. OPINION:Evelyn V. Keyes, J.; Taft, Keyes,and Hanks, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.