Heritage Numismatic Auctions, Inc. D/B/A Heritage Auctions v. Hugh Stiel
05-16-00299-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- Hugh Stiel sued Heritage Numismatic Auctions for breach of contract and related claims arising from auctions and consignment sales.
- Heritage moved to compel arbitration, relying on arbitration provisions in documents it attached as Exhibit F to an affidavit by Heritage employee and records custodian Sarah Davies.
- Davies’ affidavit described Exhibits B, E, F, and G as business records and called some exhibits "true and correct" copies, but did not expressly state that Exhibit F were the originals or exact duplicates.
- Stiel objected that Exhibit F was not properly authenticated and therefore inadmissible; the trial court sustained the objection and later denied Heritage’s motion to compel arbitration.
- Heritage appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Exhibit F and that, if admitted, the arbitration provisions would require arbitration of Stiel’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in sustaining Stiel’s objection to authentication of Exhibit F | Exhibit F was not authenticated; Davies didn’t aver the documents were true and correct copies | Davies’ affidavit and statement that facts were "true and correct" and business-record assertions satisfied Rule 902(10) or Rule 901 | Court: No abuse of discretion in sustaining the objection; Davies did not meet Rule 902(10)(B)(2) requirement and court could reasonably find Rule 901 unmet |
| Whether Heritage met its burden to prove an enforceable arbitration agreement | Stiel: because Exhibit F was excluded, Heritage cannot prove an enforceable arbitration agreement | Heritage: arbitration provisions in Exhibit F require arbitration of Stiel’s claims | Court: Because Exhibit F was excluded, Heritage failed to prove existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement; motion to compel denied |
| Whether appellate court should decide applicability of arbitration clauses if Exhibit F excluded | Stiel: not reached because documents excluded | Heritage: urged appellate resolution on applicability | Court: Declined to reach applicability issues as unnecessary to resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonded Builders Home Warranty Ass’n of Tex., Inc. v. Smith, 488 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016) (party moving to compel arbitration must prove existence of enforceable arbitration agreement)
- In the Estate of Guerrero, 465 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (absence of admitted arbitration agreement defeats motion to compel)
- VSR Fin. Servs., Inc. v. McLendon, 409 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998) (legitimate basis standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Sierad v. Barnett, 164 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (documents must be authenticated before admission)