David Chadwick Carrick and Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated v. Bettye M. Turner, by and through Sally Jo Turner Walley, Sherra Turner and Nancy Turner Gordon, POA, 298 So.3d 1006

Background

Bettye Turner had ≈$2 million managed by broker David Carrick; Carrick moved from Morgan Stanley to Stern Agee and arranged a transfer in Sept. 2009.
Turner signed a Stern Agee Account Application that incorporated by reference a separate Client Account Agreement; both forms included a predispute arbitration clause; the Application expressly acknowledged receipt of the Account Agreement.
During discovery defendants produced two different Client Account Agreement versions (an older version and a 2012 version), with the Application referencing a paragraph number that did not match the 2012 arbitration clause—creating a paragraph‑number discrepancy.
Stern Agee’s rights were assigned/merged to Stifel in 2015; Turner sued Carrick and Stifel in 2018 for negligent management; defendants moved to compel arbitration under the FAA.
The trial court denied the motion, finding no genuine contract and that the arbitration clause failed; the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, holding the Application unambiguously manifested intent to arbitrate and remanded to determine which Account Agreement (if any) governs or to apply the FAA to appoint an arbitrator.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists	Turner: no valid arbitration agreement because she didn’t sign the separate Account Agreement and the forms are conflicting	Defendants: Application plus incorporated Account Agreement evidence mutual assent to arbitrate	Held: Application unambiguously evidences intent to arbitrate; arbitration agreement valid
Whether the paragraph‑number discrepancy voids arbitration	Turner: discrepancy between Application (¶22) and 2012 Agreement (arbitration at ¶19) makes contract confusing/invalid	Defendants: discrepancy is typographical and does not negate the clear arbitration language in the Application	Held: discrepancy does not defeat arbitration; ambiguities construed in favor of arbitration
Whether Stifel (non‑signatory successor) can enforce arbitration	Turner: Stifel was not a signatory and cannot enforce the contract	Defendants: Stifel is successor by assignment/merger and can enforce the Agreement	Held: Stifel, as alleged successor, may enforce the arbitration provision; plaintiffs cannot repudiate the benefit of the agreement they alleged governs duties
Remedy and next step after finding agreement to arbitrate	Turner: (alternative) contract defenses and notice/assignment issues preclude arbitration	Defendants: FAA requires enforcement and stay/tolling in favor of arbitration	Held: Case reversed and remanded to compel arbitration and to determine which Account Agreement governs; if none, trial court should apply FAA §5 to appoint arbitrator

Key Cases Cited

Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (2017) (arbitration agreements placed on equal footing with other contracts)
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015) (federal law preempts state rules that disfavor arbitration)
AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (FAA precludes state rules that interfere with arbitration)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (FAA creates federal substantive law applicable in state and federal courts)
Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996) (state contract defenses may invalidate arbitration clause but cannot single out arbitration for disfavored treatment)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler–Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (second‑prong inquiry on whether external legal constraints foreclose arbitration)
Fradella v. Seaberry, 952 So. 2d 165 (Miss. 2007) (Mississippi de novo review and approach to arbitration enforcement)
IP Timberlands Operating Co. v. Denmiss Corp., 726 So. 2d 96 (Miss. 1998) (FAA creates federal arbitration policy applicable in Mississippi)
NC Leasing, LLC v. Junker, 172 So. 3d 155 (Miss. 2015) (court may appoint arbitrator under FAA when agreement lacks a method of selecting arbitrators)
E. Ford, Inc. v. Taylor, 826 So. 2d 709 (Miss. 2002) (two‑prong inquiry for motions to compel arbitration)