Lennar Homes of Texas Inc. v. Raul Alquicira and Adriana Alquicira, 03-21-00102-CV

Plaintiffs Raul and Adriana Alquicira sued Lennar for breach of contract, warranties, negligence, and DTPA claims arising from alleged construction defects in their home.
Their purchase agreement contained a broad dispute-resolution clause: mediation first, then binding arbitration under the FAA administered by the AAA (Home Construction or Construction Industry Rules), with arbitrability for the arbitrator(s) and a three-arbitrator panel required for claims over $250,000 unless parties agree otherwise.
Lennar moved to abate and compel arbitration, attaching the signed purchase agreement and a custodian-of-records affidavit.
The Alquiciras opposed arbitration as procedurally and substantively unconscionable because of prohibitive arbitration costs and asserted inability to pay; they submitted an engineer’s report and Raul’s declaration of finances and estimated AAA fees.
At the hearing there was no testimonial evidence or concrete cost invoices; counsel mainly argued cost estimates and claimed they would seek over $1 million. The trial court denied the motion to compel; Lennar appealed.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the Alquiciras failed to present the specific evidence required to show arbitration costs would be prohibitive and thus render the clause unconscionable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement covers the dispute	Alquiciras argued arbitration clause is unconscionable and void due to inability to pay and alleged prior breaches	Lennar showed a signed, broad arbitration clause covering contract, warranty, tort, and property-damage claims	Court found Lennar proved the agreement and scope; Alquiciras did not contest formation or scope at trial
Whether arbitration is unenforceable because costs would prevent vindication of rights	Alquiciras asserted AAA filing/admin and three-arbitrator fees (estimates) plus counsel’s contingency arrangement would make arbitration unaffordable	Lennar argued Alquiciras offered only speculation, failed to compare total arbitration vs litigation costs, and did not use fee-reduction mechanisms or present invoices/experts	Court held Alquiciras failed to provide specific, reliable evidence of likely prohibitive costs; speculation insufficient; arbitration enforcement appropriate

Venture Cotton Coop. v. Freeman, 435 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. 2014) (party seeking to compel arbitration must establish agreement; burden shifts to opponent to prove affirmative defense)
In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., LLC, 328 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. 2010) (excessive arbitration costs can render clause unconscionable; opponent must present specific evidence and compare total costs)
Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (speculative risk of costs insufficient to show prohibitive arbitration fees)
Henry v. Cash Biz, L.P., 551 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. 2018) (standard of review for denial of motion to compel arbitration: abuse of discretion; legal issues reviewed de novo)
Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, LLP v. Lopez, 467 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2015) (whether arbitration agreement is unconscionable is a legal question)
Belmont Constructors, Inc. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Co., 896 S.W.2d 352 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ) (party must show contractual right to arbitration)