Greater Canton Ford Mercury, Inc., et al. v. Wallace Ables, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01316-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-01-2007
Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J.
Holding: VACATED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PAR
Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Arbitration - Appropriate forum for interpretation - Comity
Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: EASLEY, J. CONCURS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTE
Non Participating Judge(s): GRAVES AND RANDOLPH, JJ.
Dissenting Author : DIAZ, J.
Dissent Joined By : EASLEY, J. JOINED IN PART
Concurs in Result Only: EASLEY, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-18-2005
Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court
Judge: Jannie M. Lewis
Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment & denied Appellant's Motion to Compel Arbitration
Case Number: 2003-299
  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: GREATER CANTON FORD MERCURY, INC., KEITH CLARK, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, RAY L. FAYNE AND KATRINA FAYNE




MICHAEL DAVID TAPSCOTT THOMAS WICKER DARA STEELE-BELKIN JOHN H. FLEMING DANIEL H. SCHLUETER PHIL B. ABERNETHY ARNOLD DATRON LEE GARY E. FRIEDMAN LATOYA CHEREE MERRITT



  
Appellee: WALLACE ABLES, MARY BENNETT AND JOHN WILLIAMS J. DOUGLAS MINOR, 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 - Appropriate forum for interpretation - Comity
Summary of the Facts: Wallace Ables, Mary Bennett and John Williams purchased pre-owned vehicles from Greater Canton Ford Mercury, Inc. They filed an action alleging that GCFM and its employees, Keith Clark, Ray Fayne, and Katrina Fayne, along with Ford Motor Company, committed fraud by selling them “certified, pre-owned vehicles” when, in fact, the vehicles were either not eligible for this program or had not undergone an inspection and maintenance program. The defendants filed a Motion to Stay Litigation and Compel Arbitration which the court denied. The defendants appeal, and Ford separately appeals the applicability of the circuit court judgment to it, particularly, whether as a non-signatory it may compel arbitration.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: In determining whether to grant a motion to compel arbitration of a dispute subject to the FAA, the Court must examine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute and must determine whether legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement bar arbitration of the claims. The plaintiffs do not dispute the validity of the arbitration agreement but disagree with the defendants about whether their claim of fraudulent behavior is encompassed within the arbitration provision. Whether a party is bound by an arbitration agreement is generally considered an issue for the courts, not the arbitrator, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. In this case, the language of the arbitration agreement directs that disputes regarding interpretation of the agreement, including scope and arbitrability of issues, are to be decided by an arbitrator. Though plaintiffs dispute the clarity of the language in the provision, the examples in the arbitration provision explicitly identify disputes as to interpretation, scope, validity, and arbitrability of any issue as those subject to arbitration upon the initiation of either party, including after litigation had begun. Therefore, the appropriate forum for interpretation is arbitration. The plaintiffs have presented no allegation of fraudulent inducement to entering the arbitration agreement and no defense as to why the arbitration provision should be deemed unenforceable. Therefore, there are no legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement that would foreclose arbitration. Ford argues that, as a defendant, despite its non-signatory status, it can independently compel arbitration. Ford first attempted to gain contract enforcement rights in federal district court which ruled that Ford could not compel arbitration. The circuit court stayed the identical action in its court to await the outcome in federal district court. Upon the issuance of the district court decision, the circuit court issued a decision drawing its sole rationale and ultimate ruling from the district court judge, referring to him by name. Clearly, when faced with the identical issue, the trial court decided to recognize the federal district court’s judgment, and there was no abuse of discretion in that decision. The Fifth Circuit has now reversed the district court, and the same principle of comity applies. Thus, Ford’s appeal is moot.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court