Mary E. Ewing v. ACT Catastrophe-Texas L.C.
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5393
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Arbitration arose from a fire restoration dispute between Mary Ewing and ACT Catastrophe-Texas L.C. after ACT performed work on Ewing’s home.
- Ewing signed a Work Authorization containing an arbitration clause for disputes relating to the restoration services.
- ACT initiated arbitration against Ewing in August 2009; Ewing did not object or participate.
- Arbitrator conducted a hearing on October 23, 2009; Ewing and counsel did not appear; ACT presented its case and obtained an award against Ewing.
- ACT moved to confirm the arbitration award; the trial court held a hearing and then entered an order (labeled Final Judgment) confirming the award and rendering judgment against Ewing.
- A final judgment was entered after a bench trial against Dean Marshall and Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.; Ewing then appealed challenging the arbitration-based judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confirmation of the arbitration award was proper without a court order compelling arbitration and given lack of Ewing’s participation | Ewing—no agreement/order; no arbitration participation | ACT—arbitration could proceed and be confirmed without a court order | Yes; confirmation valid under Texas Act and federal law when no statutory ground to vacate exists. |
| Whether due process was violated by rendering judgment after Ewing’s absence from arbitration | Ewing—due process/open courts rights violated | No due process violation; meaningful opportunity to be heard was provided | No violation; absence did not by itself violate due process. |
| Whether ACT waived arbitration rights by substantially invoking judicial process | Waiver occurred by pursuing court actions | Waiver not a statutory ground under Texas Act; not grounds to avoid confirmation | Waiver not a valid basis to overturn confirmation; argument rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008) (review of arbitration-order questions on appeal from final judgment)
- Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (exclusive grounds for vacating/modifying under federal act)
- CVN Group, Inc. v. Delgado, 95 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. 2002) (arbitration awards may be vacated on narrow grounds, including public policy)
- Riha v. Smulcer, 843 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. App.—Hou. [14th Dist.] 1992) (lists common-law grounds for vacating arbitration awards)
- Callahan & Assocs. v. Orangefield Indep. Sch. Dist., 92 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. 2002) (common-law vacatur grounds may apply; standard not satisfied here)
- Kline v. O’Quinn, 874 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.—Hou. [14th Dist.] 1994) (preservation requirements; error not preserved)