Schwarz v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, 58 A.3d 1270

Schwarz sued Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC f/k/a Wachovia Securities LLC and Drew Barlow for professional negligence, breach of contract, conversion, and UTPCPL claims related to alleged investment losses after 2008.
Appellants answered and moved to compel arbitration, arguing the claims were subject to arbitration based on documents tied to prior broker entities.
Schwarz disputed arbitration, claiming he never signed an arbitration agreement and that the pre-relationship documents could not bind him.
Judge Manfredi previously granted the petition to compel arbitration after finding an arbitration agreement existed, denying Schwarz discovery on illegible documents.
Schwarz later obtained a nominal arbitration award (October 12, 2011) and petitioned the trial court to vacate or confirm; Judge Herron vacated the award, ruling there was no agreement to arbitrate and that the arbitrators exceeded their powers.
Appellants appeal, contending Judge Herron exceeded statutory authority and violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule; the court remands to address § 7304/7314 issues on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly vacated the arbitration award for lack of an arbitration agreement.	Schwarz lacked an arbitration agreement; prior rulings determined no agreement.	Herron had authority to vacate under §7314(a)(1)(v) and relied on lack of agreement.	Vacating authority improper; remand to pursue §7304/§7314 issues on direct appeal.
Whether Judge Herron violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule by reversing Judge Manfredi on the arbitration issue.	Herron’s reversal was improper under coordinate jurisdiction.	Coordinate rule incorporated in §7314(a)(1)(v); review appropriate via direct appeal.	Reversal improper; remand for appropriate appellate review.

Patton v. Hanover Ins. Co., 417 Pa. Super. 351 (1992) (exists issue to arbitrate determined in §7304/§7314 proceedings; review on appeal)
Ario v. Reliance Ins. Co., 602 Pa. 490, 980 A.2d 588 (2009) (coordinate-jurisdiction considerations and review structure under arbitration acts)
Quiles v. Financial Exch. Co., 879 A.2d 281 (Pa. Super. 2005) (need for substantial evidence in §7304 determinations under certain circumstances)
Keystone Technology Group, Inc. v. Ken Group, Inc., 824 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Super. 2003) (remand for evidentiary support on enforceability of arbitration conditions)
Jones v. Rivera, 866 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2005) (manifest injustice considerations in coordinate-jurisdiction context)
DiGregorio v. Keystone Health Plan East, 840 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc; considerations of justice and delay in arbitration proceedings)
Zane v. Friends Hosp., 575 Pa. 236, 836 A.2d 25 (2003) (exception to coordinate-jurisdiction rule when clearly erroneous ruling would cause manifest injustice)
Starr v. Commonwealth, 541 Pa. 564, 664 A.2d 1326 (1995) (principles cited regarding the limits of revisiting coordinate-judge decisions)