in Re Highland Homes – Houston, LLC, 01-21-00585-CV

Plaintiff Ursula McLendon bought a house from Highland Homes under a Sales Agreement containing a binding arbitration clause.
The Arbitration Clause required the parties to select an arbitrator by agreement, and if they could not agree after good-faith attempts, the dispute "may be referred to the American Arbitration Association (AAA)," with arbitration governed by AAA Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and the Texas Arbitration Act.
McLendon sued Highland for residential construction defects; Highland moved to abate and compel arbitration.
McLendon did not dispute arbitrability but proposed a list of eleven potential arbitrators and asked the trial court to appoint one after the parties failed to agree.
The trial court compelled arbitration and appointed Alison J. Snyder as arbitrator over Highland’s objection that the Sales Agreement allowed only party selection or AAA appointment.
Highland sought mandamus relief; the court of appeals conditionally granted the petition, vacating the trial court’s appointment but leaving the order compelling arbitration intact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could appoint an arbitrator despite the parties' agreed method of selection in the Arbitration Clause	McLendon: the clause’s use of "may" for AAA referral does not preclude judicial appointment and is permissive, so the court could appoint an arbitrator	Highland: the clause is unambiguous—only two methods exist (party agreement or AAA appointment); the court cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator	Court: the clause allows only selection by agreement or by AAA; the trial court abused its discretion by appointing its own arbitrator and erred to the extent it excluded AAA rules

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (standard for mandamus relief when trial court abuses discretion)
In re Daisy Mfg. Co., 17 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. 2000) (mandamus appropriate for certain interlocutory orders)
In re Serv. Corp. Intern., 355 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. 2011) (appointing an arbitrator contrary to the contract’s agreed method is an abuse of discretion)
In re M.W.M., Jr., 523 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017) (appeal inadequate when trial court improperly designates an arbitrator or denies contracted arbitration rights)
Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. 2006) (principles for interpreting contract language and party intent)
Ewing Constr. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 420 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. 2014) (contract interpretation disfavors readings that render language surplusage)