Geo-Tech Foundation Repair v. Terry Leggett
02-16-00289-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- In April 2011 Geo‑Tech and Terry Leggett entered a written contract for foundation repairs to Leggett’s Fort Worth home; the contract contains mandatory AAA arbitration clauses and bears Leggett’s signature.
- Leggett sued Geo‑Tech for breach of contract in November 2015 seeking damages and attorney’s fees; Geo‑Tech answered with a general denial.
- Six months later (May 2016), Geo‑Tech moved to compel arbitration and attached a copy of the signed contract to its motion (the motion was not sworn).
- Leggett did not dispute in the trial court that a contract or arbitration clause existed; his response argued Geo‑Tech waived arbitration by delaying and causing prejudice.
- The trial court denied Geo‑Tech’s motion to compel arbitration; Geo‑Tech appealed the interlocutory order.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed (de novo as to the existence of the arbitration agreement and for abuse of discretion as to denial) and reversed, ordering remand for proceedings consistent with compelling arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Leggett's Argument | Geo‑Tech's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the attached contract was competent/authenticated evidence of an arbitration agreement | The contract is unauthenticated and thus cannot prove an agreement to arbitrate | The contract attached to the motion (signed by Leggett) establishes the agreement; Leggett never disputed existence below | Because Leggett admitted/assumed the agreement in the trial court, lack of formal authentication cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; existence established |
| Whether Geo‑Tech waived its right to arbitrate by delaying six months | Geo‑Tech delayed and prejudiced Leggett (loss of claims, litigation expense, being strung along) | Six‑month delay is insufficient; Geo‑Tech did not substantially invoke the judicial process or cause prejudice | No waiver: record shows limited participation by Geo‑Tech, little discovery, no merits disposition requests, and no shown prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts Regulator Co. v. Texas Farmers Ins. Co., 498 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (de novo review of agreement validity; arbitration scope analysis)
- BBVA Compass Inv. Solutions, Inc. v. Brooks, 456 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (strong federal/state policy favoring arbitration)
- Brand FX, LLC v. Rhine, 458 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (trial court abuses discretion by refusing to compel arbitration under a valid agreement)
- RSL Funding, LLC v. Pippins, 499 S.W.3d 423 (Tex.) (standard for implied waiver; strong presumption against waiver; factors to consider)
- G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex.) (waiver requires substantial invocation of judicial process plus prejudice)
- Richmont Holdings, Inc. v. Superior Recharge Sys., L.L.C., 455 S.W.3d 573 (Tex.) (mere delay is insufficient; factors include discovery and attempts to obtain merits disposition)
- Kennedy Hodges, L.L.P. v. Gobellan, 433 S.W.3d 542 (Tex.) (high burden to prove waiver; doubts resolved for arbitration)
- Prudential Sec. Inc. v. Marshall, 909 S.W.2d 896 (Tex.) (delay alone does not establish waiver)
- Nw. Constr. Co. v. Oak Partners, L.P., 248 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (presumption in favor of arbitration; prejudice required to find waiver)