B. C. Rogers Poultry, Inc. v. Wedgeworth
| Docket Number: | 2000-IA-00184-SCT Linked Case(s): 2000-IA-00184-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 06-23-2005 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Arbitration - Retroactive application of arbitration clause - Equitable estoppel - Waiver Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Easley, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Smith, C.J. Dissent Joined By : Cobb, P.J., and Carlson, J. |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-19-2000 Appealed from: Smith County Circuit Court Judge: Robert G. Evans Case Number: 98-0258 |
|
| Note: | Link inactive | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | B. C. Rogers Poultry, Inc. and Bank of Morton |
|||
| Appellee: | Tommy Wedgeworth |
|
||
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 - Retroactive application of arbitration clause - Equitable estoppel - Waiver |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tommy Wedgeworth sued B.C. Rogers Poultry, Inc. and the Bank of Morton. The Bank filed its answer, with a multicount counterclaim against Wedgeworth. The Bank did not plead arbitration as an affirmative defense. Rogers pled the affirmative defense of arbitration in its answer. The Bank, fully aware that Rogers was seeking to compel arbitration, elected to file discovery, including interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Subsequently, Rogers filed a motion to stay claim and compel arbitration. The Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss and joined Rogers’ motion to compel arbitration. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the Supreme Court granted Rogers and the Bank permission to bring this interlocutory appeal. Before briefing was complete on this appeal, Rogers filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy proceeding has concluded, and all claims against Rogers have been discharged. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Bank argues that the court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration because the dispute arises out of the contract which contains the arbitration clause. Wedgeworth argues that his claims against the Bank originated before the contract and therefore are outside the scope of the contract containing the arbitration clause. Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to submit. The language of the Broiler Growing Agreement does not include a single word or phrase which expresses an intent by the parties that the arbitration clause should be applied retroactively to conduct occurring prior to its execution. In fact, the plain language states otherwise. The three-year term Broiler Growing Agreement contains no language revealing an intent by the parties to suggest, much less require, retroactive application of the arbitration clause to putative claims which arose prior to the date of the agreement. Of significance is the uncontested fact that during the years proceeding and following the execution of the Broiler Growing Agreement, the Bank and Wedgeworth entered into a series of other contracts, not one of which contained an arbitration clause. The plain text of the contract between Rogers and Wedgeworth, upon which the Bank relies, contains no language evidencing Wedgeworth’s intent to waive his fundamental right to a jury trial in a dispute with the Bank or Rogers for prior alleged wrongdoing. In addition, the scope of the arbitration clause does not cover this dispute between Wedgeworth and the Bank. The dispute in this case does not fall within the narrow language of the clause which states that only disputes “arising under” the agreement be arbitrated. The agreement governed the Broiler Growing relationship between Rogers and Wedgeworth and did not govern relationships between Wedgeworth and the Bank. Under Mississippi law, equitable estoppel exists where there is a belief and reliance on some representation; a change of position as a result thereof; and detriment or prejudice caused by the change of position. It cannot be said that, when Wedgeworth signed the Broiler Growing Agreement with Rogers, the Bank believed and relied on the representation, changed its position as a result of the Broiler Growing Agreement and finally that it suffered detriment or prejudice as a result thereof. There is no proof that the Bank relied to its detriment that Wedgeworth would arbitrate any claim he had against the Bank. Finally, the Bank acceded to the jurisdiction of the trial court by failing to raise arbitration in either its answer or affirmative defenses. Not only did the Bank fail to raise arbitration, it invoked the jurisdiction of the court by filing a multicount counterclaim on a series of allegedly past due promissory notes. The Bank also filed discovery requests, including requests for production of documents and interrogatories on Wedgeworth. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
