Rami Amir and Ron Aliezer v. International Bank of Commerce
419 S.W.3d 687
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellants Amir and Aliezer sought to compel arbitration in a suit by IBC, raising a plea in abatement and arbitration motion.
- IBC foreclosed on two construction loans in 2012 and later sued for deficiency judgments.
- Arbitration clauses exist across notes, deeds of trust, and guarantees, with FAA/AAA arbitration and broad arbitrable claims.
- Trial court denied arbitration because Amir and Aliezer would not pay their share of the arbitration filing fee.
- The central questions were whether notice of intent and fee payment were satisfied as conditions precedent to arbitration.
- Court reverses, finding notice sufficed and fee payment was not clearly a condition precedent; awards arbitration compelment on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was notice of intent to arbitrate satisfied as a condition precedent? | Amir and Aliezer provided notice. | IBC did not receive written notice of intent. | Yes; notice satisfied condition precedent and allowed arbitration to proceed. |
| Are filing-fee payments a condition precedent to invoking arbitration? | Paying arbitration fees is not a condition precedent. | Each party must pay their portion as a condition precedent. | No clear contractual language making fees a condition precedent; dispute to be resolved in arbitration. |
| Do the agreements allow enforcement of arbitration despite unresolved procedural prerequisites? | Arbitration should be enforced if scope and existence are valid. | Procedural prerequisites must be met before arbitration. | Arbitration should be compelled; trial court erred in denying motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) (questions of enforceability and scope; de novo review of legal questions)
- In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (burden shifting after establishing valid arbitration agreement)
- In re Provine, 312 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (once arbitration exists, opposing party bears defenses to enforcement)
- In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) (arbitration policy favors resolving in arbitration; doubts resolve in favor of arbitration)
- In re Pisces Foods, L.L.C., 228 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (strict prerequisites to arbitration are resolved to arbitrators, narrow exception)