Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Malcolm S. Robinson, Royce B. West and Julia L.S. Gooden practiced law at Robinson West & Gooden. Robinson filed suit against West, Gooden and the corporation (collectively, West), alleging various causes of action and seeking dissolution of the corporation. West answered with a general denial and raised several counterclaims. The parties then filed a joint motion to abate, which stated: “1. Plaintiff and Defendants have both sued each other in the above referenced matter. 2. The parties however, have agreed and do hereby agree to arbitrate their disputes and dissolve the corporation to wit: Robinson West & Gooden P.C.” The trial court granted the motion and the parties proceeded to arbitration, but the arbitrator’s award did not dissolve the corporation. Over Robinson’s objection, the trial court confirmed the award. Robinson appealed, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by making an award that contravened the agreement to dissolve the corporation. West argued that the parties modified the arbitration agreement by submitting amended claims and counterclaims for arbitration pursuant to an agreement they reached with the arbitrator at a preliminary hearing. West also argued that Robinson waived any complaint about the scope of the arbitration agreement because Robinson did not object during the arbitration proceedings. The court of appeals concluded that the parties, in their joint motion to abate, entered into a binding Rule 11 agreement to dissolve the corporation and that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under that agreement. It reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment “compelling arbitration of the mechanics of the dissolution of the corporation.” The court’s opinion did not address whether the arbitration agreement was modified or whether Robinson waived his right to complain about its scope. West filed a motion for rehearing in which he argued that the court failed to address all the issues necessary to disposition of the appeal, as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. While the court of appeals acknowledged that West asked the arbitrator not to dissolve the corporation, it failed to identify and expressly consider modification and waiver as distinct issues associated with the relief the parties requested from the arbitrator. Consequently, the court of appeals did not comply with Rule 47.1, which is a mandatory provision. OPINION:Per curiam.

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.