Table of Content
The more the data availability, the higher the confidence for our algorithm. Use of State Facilities Resources and Equipment a. The Employer’s campuses and facilities may be used by the Union to hold meetings subject to the University’s policy and availability of the space. The Employer may provide private space for stewards and/or Union representatives to meet in confidence with those they represent on a space available basis. Staff representatives may reserve and utilize meeting rooms in accordance with University policy and procedure. Such requests will be subject to availability and all applicable fees.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Whiteley was not bound by the arbitration provision in the deed. Lennar also argued that four other, independent reasons required Whiteley to arbitrate her claims. 3 The Hayslip court also noted that the issue was one of first impression with potentially wide-ranging effect and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court, which has accepted jurisdiction and ordered full briefing. Valid agreement to arbitrate is premised on principles of Texas contract and real property law. Based on our analysis of Texas case law , we conclude the arbitration agreement at issue does not constitute a covenant that runs with the land as a matter of Texas law and Hayslip does not advance a compelling argument to the contrary. Back in the trial court, Lennar filed a combined Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and Motion to Join Additional Parties.
Cited 0 times
As cases are decided, summaries are updated with any opinions, dissents, or concurrences. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.
Grp., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 263, 267 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) . A party s status as a third-party beneficiary depends solely on the contracting parties intent. First Bank v. Brumitt, 519 S.W.3d 95, 102 (Tex. 2017). Specifically, a person seeking to establish third- party-beneficiary status must demonstrate that the contracting parties intended to secure a benefit to that third party and entered into the contract directly for the third party s benefit. Id. (quoting Stine v. Stewart, 80 S.W.3d 586, 589 (Tex. 2002) ). The benefit must be more than incidental; the parties intent to confer a direct benefit to the third party must be clearly and fully spelled out in the agreement.
LENNAR HOMES OF TEXAS LAND AND CONSTRUCTION, LTD.
1 Big Tex designed and installed the air conditioning system in Whit inspected multiple phases of tion. The arbitrator issued his award on December 13, 2018. The arbitrator denied Whiteley all relief sought against Lennar and awarded Lennar attorney s fees and costs from Whiteley, Big Tex, and Xalt.
Asserting the arbitration agreement is a restriction, condition, and covenant in the property records, Lennar argues Whiteley s general warranty deed evidences an agreement to assume the arbitration provision. When construing instruments recorded in real property records, we apply the same rules that govern the interpretation of contracts. Marzo Club, LLC v. Columbia Lakes Homeowners Ass n, 325 S.W.3d 791, 798 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.). Our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in the instrument. If the instrument can be given a certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation, it is unambiguous and we construe it as a matter of law. Matters regarding arbitration awards in Texas courts are governed by Texas procedural rules.
Court of Appeals of Texas |
Moreover, the provision also states that the warranty s rights and obligations were not guaranteed; instead, they could be released by the original owner or one of his successors. The Texas Supreme Court has stated that there is a presumption against conferring third-party-beneficiary status on noncontracting parties. V. Lomas, 223 S.W.3d 304, 306 (Tex. 2007) . Accordingly, he contract must include a clear and unequivocal expression of the contracting parties intent to directly benefit a third party, and any implied intent to create a third-party beneficiary is insufficient. First Bank, 519 S.W.3d at 103 (quoting Tawes v. Barnes, 340 S.W.3d 419, 425 (Tex. 2011)). Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements.
The Court granted the petition for review and set oral argument for January 31, 2023. These examples are insufficient to bind Whiteley to the single-family warranty s arbitration provision under the theory of direct benefits estoppel. In her second amended petition, Whiteley asserted a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices claim that alleged Lennar reach an express or implied warranty. Whiteley asked Lennar to plant a tree on her property in December 2015 and April 2016.
Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Ltd. v. City of Cibolo, Texas et al
See Jody James Farms, JV, 547 S.W.3d at 633. The Court has not identified covenants running with the land as one of those theories. We decline Lennar s invitation to expand Texas law and adopt a new principle previously unrecognized by the Texas Supreme Court despite decades of jurisprudence concerning arbitrations and well-established Texas law concerning the nature of covenants that run with the land. 2 Even though the parties arbitration proceeding was governed by the FAA, procedural confirm or vacate an arbitration award should be decided as other motions in civil cases; on notice and an evidentiary hearing, if necessary.
While the provision states that the warranty s rights and obligations . Fully transfer to each successor owner of the Home, that transfer is effective only if the House is sold during the Warranty Term. If the House is sold outside the Warranty Term , the successor owner is not entitled to any of the warranty s rights.
1 The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act . Therefore, regardless of what transpired in arbitration, Whiteley would have been able to challenge on appeal the trial court s ruling regarding whether she and Lennar were bound by a valid arbitration agreement. See Perry Homes, 258 S.W.3d at , 601; Ctr.
The existence of a valid arbitration agreement between specific parties is a gateway matter for the court to decide. Mgmt., LLC, 577 S.W.3d 263, 267 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). Under the FAA, ordinary principles of state contract law determine whether the parties have a valid agreement to arbitrate. In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220, 224 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding).
No comments:
Post a Comment