Sheri Eddleman v. Matthew J. Ocker, 13-15-00217-CV

Background

Parties entered a March 29, 2013 Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) in Victoria County providing mediation then arbitration for pre-decree disputes, including a Shell Station child-exchange provision.
MSA required mediation with Michael P. O'Reilly and, if needed, binding arbitration; dispute resolution was to occur under those procedures.
Judge Alcala (24th Dist. Court) found the agreement freely entered and ordered mediation/arbitration; Eddleman initially refused to mediate.
Ocker sought to enforce the MSA and recover fees/costs, including mediation/arbitration costs; Eddleman sought to abate/transfer venue and denied enforcement.
Arbitration occurred with Michael P. O'Reilly; the Arbitrator later issued a First Amended Arbitration Award and an addendum.
Judge Stith (319th Dist. Court) vacated the arbitration award and directed proceedings back to arbitration in conformity with the arbitration agreement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the arbitrator exceed his authority by ruling on issues not pending or outside the arbitration agreement?	Ocker contends the arbitrator addressed moot or non-pending issues and ignored those within his remit.	Eddleman contends the arbitrator acted within the scope of the dispute submitted and that some issues were moot.	Yes; the arbitrator exceeded authority by ruling on issues not properly submitted and by failing to address pending issues.
Did the arbitrator properly resolve all pending issues from the 13th Court of Appeals and the 319th District Court as required by the arbitration agreement?	Ocker asserts all pending issues from both courts were contractually to be arbitrated.	Eddleman argues mootness and proper submission limited the arbitrator’s task.	The arbitrator did not resolve all pending issues; he deemed some moot and failed to address others as required.
Was it error to award attorney’s fees/costs under the MSA based on arbitration results?	Ocker sought attorney’s fees/costs under §10 of the MSA for enforcing the agreement.		Yes; the award was improper where the arbitrator did not properly apply the MSA terms and exceeded authority.
Did the arbitrator commit error on venue by granting a transfer to Victoria County under the arbitration agreement?	Ocker argues venue should be Nueces County where arbitration occurred.	Eddleman argues Victoria County venue provision governs.	Arbitrator erred; venue fixed by statute to the location of arbitration, superseding contract provision.
Should the appellate court disturb the arbitration ruling and remand to proper arbitration?	Ocker seeks relief consistent with contract and authority of arbitrator.	Eddleman seeks affirmance/avoidance of compelled arbitration.	The court may reverse and remand/arbitrate consistent with contract due to arbitrator’s authority issues.

Key Cases Cited

Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. 2012) (limits appellate/judicial review of MSAs with arbitration clauses; defer to arbitration when provided)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Guidry, 327 S.W.2d 406 (Tex. 1959) (arbitrator’s authority defined by arbitration agreement; limits on review)
In re Lopez, 372 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. 2012) (venue/arbitration issues; waiver of court recourse when parties agree to arbitrate)
In re Burton, McCumber & Cortez, L.L.P., 115 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 2003) (orig. proceeding; arbitration framework limits court intervention)
Kilroy v. Kilroy, 137 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (waiver of rights when parties contract to arbitrate; mootness considerations)
Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. 1988) (abate/motion to transfer venue; dominant jurisdiction principles)
Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. 1974) (standard for judicial action in arbitration/settlement contexts)
Sweezy Constr. Inc. v. Murray, 915 S.W.2d 527 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 1995) (orig. proceeding; mediation/arbitration interplay)
Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1996) (fees/costs under mediation/arbitration framework)
Pettus v. Pettus, 237 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007) (arbitrator authority and review; limits of award)