Holman Dealerships, Inc., v. Davis
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00101-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-25-2006 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Arbitration agreement Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal & Denial of Motion to Compel Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-25-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: ORDER DENYING HOLMAN DEALERSHIP’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISSING THE CLAIMS OF PAUL AND CATHERINE DAVIS Case Number: 251-04-246CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HOLMAN DEALERSHIPS, INC., A MISSISSIPPI
CORPORATION |
TAYLOR NICHOLSON FERRELL,
WILLIAM W. BUSCHING |
||
| Appellee: | VERA HELEN DAVIS, PAUL DAVIS AND CATHERINE DAVIS | THOMAS QUITMAN BRAME, JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Arbitration agreement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Vera Davis purchased a 2002 Volkswagen vehicle for her son and daughter-in-law, John and Catherine Davis, from Holman Dealerships, Inc. In connection with the sale, Vera and Holman entered into a binding arbitration agreement. When Vera, Paul, and Catherine filed a complaint against Holman alleging fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation related to the sale of the vehicle, Holman filed its answer and a motion to compel mandatory arbitration. The court dismissed Paul and Catherine as plaintiffs, and denied Holman’s motion to compel arbitration. Holman appeals, and Paul and Catherine cross-appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Holman argues that the court erred in denying the motion to compel because Davis’ claim is a fraudulent inducement defense to the entire agreement with Holman and not a specific challenge to the arbitration clause. The Davises attack is upon the fraudulent representations made to induce them to contract with Holman, and the failure to receive that for which they bargained and contracted. These things fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Because the fraudulent misrepresentation argument goes to the merits of the underlying dispute, the trial court should have ordered the claim to be submitted to arbitration. In their cross-appeal, Paul and Catherine argue that they are necessary parties to the contract and should not have been dismissed from the lawsuit. The language of the arbitration agreement reads, “This agreement is binding upon, and inures to the benefit of buyer/lessee and dealer and the officers, employees, agents and affiliated entities of each of them. . . ”. As third party beneficiaries, Paul and Catherine are affiliated entities of Vera Davis, and are thus bound by the agreement for mandatory arbitration. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
