Sheri Eddleman v. Matthew J. Ocker
13-15-00217-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 7, 2015Background
- Parties: Sheri Eddleman (appellant/defendant) and Matthew J. Ocker (appellee/plaintiff); disputes arise from a Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) and related orders.
- Procedural posture: Arbitration award in favor of Eddleman; 319th District Court (Judge Stith) denied confirmation and granted vacatur; this is Eddleman’s reply urging reversal and confirmation. 13th Court of Appeals involvement includes a dismissed 2014 appeal that the parties later agreed to arbitrate.
- Core facts: Judge Alcala, at a June 25, 2013 hearing, stated on the record that “there is no agreement” (except ¶ 10 of the MSA) and that prior court orders remained in effect; the parties dispute whether the MSA required Eddleman to exchange children in Cameron after that hearing.
- Arbitration scope: Parties’ agreement to arbitrate broadly covered “all currently pending issues in the 319th District Court” and issues pending in the 13th Court of Appeals; the arbitrator treated Judge Alcala’s on‑record finding as controlling and found Eddleman prevailed on the alleged MSA breach.
- Fee/costs dispute: Ocker sought attorney’s fees under ¶ 10 of the MSA (fees for prevailing in litigation to construe/enforce the MSA). The arbitrator declined to award fees on multiple bases; the district court treated those rulings as exceeding arbitrator authority and vacated/denied confirmation.
- Venue/abatement: Arbitrator ruled on Eddleman’s motion to abate/transfer venue and awarded fees for prevailing on that motion; Judge Stith held the arbitrator exceeded authority by deciding the venue motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ocker) | Defendant's Argument (Eddleman) | Held (district court) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by finding Eddleman prevailed on alleged breach of MSA (failure to exchange children) | Arbitrator erred because MSA required exchange and Eddleman failed to plead lack of agreement as an affirmative defense; Judge Alcala’s later written order does not excuse performance | Judge Alcala’s on‑record ruling meant there was no enforceable MSA (except ¶10); lack of agreement was properly denied in general denial; arbitrator legitimately applied Alcala’s ruling and thus did not exceed authority | District court found an "irreconcilable ambiguity" and granted vacatur / denied confirmation on this ground |
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by not awarding Ocker fees/costs allegedly arising from prior 24th District Court litigation and the 2014 appeal | Ocker contends he prevailed by obtaining orders compelling mediation/arbitration and thus is entitled to fees under ¶10; arbitration should have awarded fees | Eddleman argues arbitration agreement encompassed the appeal, arbitrator correctly found no pending issues from the 2014 appeal or reasonably construed ¶10 to award fees only for prevailing on substantive MSA interpretation/enforcement, not merely obtaining an order to arbitrate | District court concluded arbitrator erred in failing to award fees and vacated/denied confirmation on fee issues |
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by denying fees/costs tied to the 319th District Court claim (breach/damages) | Ocker says prevailing in getting the court to compel arbitration (and in prior proceedings) made him prevailing party entitled to fees | Eddleman argues arbitrator reasonably found she prevailed (because MSA was not in effect after Alcala’s ruling) and that ¶10’s fee entitlement reasonably applies only to substantive victories on MSA interpretation/enforcement | District court treated failure to award these fees as exceeding arbitrator authority and vacated/denied confirmation |
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by ruling on motion to abate/transfer venue and awarding related fees | Ocker contends the venue motion became moot or dispositive after court-ordered mediation/arbitration; arbitrator should not have decided or awarded fees for venue | Eddleman argues arbitrator properly decided venue because transfer enforcement would be needed to collect fees and ¶9 of MSA provided Victoria venue; arbitrator explained why motion was not moot and awarded fees for prevailing on venue transfer | District court held arbitrator exceeded authority on venue ruling and vacated/denied confirmation (thought motion was moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Shor, 443 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2013) (pet. denied) (arbitration awards are subject to highly limited judicial review; mistakes of law/fact by arbitrator are not grounds for vacatur)
- Werline v. E. Texas Salt Water Disposal Co., 307 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2010) (court of appeals may confirm arbitration award despite a trial court’s vacatur order)
- T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1992) (material terms and mutual agreement required for contract enforcement)
- Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1996) (distinction between general denial and affirmative defenses)
- In re Guardianship of Cantu de Villarreal, 330 S.W.3d 11 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2010) (no pet.) (when arbitration proceeded without a record, courts presume adequate evidence and reasoning to support the award)