Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC v. Sea Breeze I, LLC, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00632-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00632-COA ; 2010-CT-00632-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-30-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Arbitration agreement - Review of arbitrator’s decision - Decision to consolidate - Jurisdiction Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-31-2010 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: James Persons Disposition: GRANTED MOTION TO COMPEL CONSOLIDATED ARBITRATION AND DENIED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case Number: C2402-09-764(3) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC |
CHAD P. FAVRE
F. EWIN HENSON III |
|
|
| Appellee: | Sea Breeze I, LLC and Roy Anderson Corporation | WILLIAM R. PURDY JEREMY M. CLAY SCOTT D. STEVENS |
|
|
| Appellee #2: | ||||
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 - Review of arbitrator’s decision - Decision to consolidate - Jurisdiction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sea Breeze I, LLC contracted with Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC to provide design services for the construction of a condominium complex. Sea Breeze also contracted with Roy Anderson Corporation to provide construction services for the same project. Both contracts contained arbitration agreements. After some dispute over an alleged defect in the condominium complex, Sea Breeze sought arbitration against HBSA, and it sought a separate arbitration against Roy Anderson. Thereafter, all parties consented to the American Arbitrators Association’s appointment of a special arbitrator skilled in construction law and construction industry rules laid out by the AAA. The arbitrator concluded that the arbitrations should be consolidated since they arose from a common question of fact or law and would, therefore, facilitate complete relief for the parties involved by becoming joined. HBSA subsequently filed an action in chancery court seeking injunctive relief and reversal of the arbitrator’s decision. Sea Breeze and Roy Anderson then filed a joint motion to compel the consolidated arbitration and dismiss HBSA’s petition for injunctive relief. The chancery court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to overrule the decision of the arbitrator and denied HBSA’s order for injunctive relief and granted the motion to compel the consolidated arbitration. HBSA appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | HBSA argues that trial courts, including the chancery court in this case, may independently review an arbitrator’s decision as to the arbitrability of a dispute. Parties’ questions of arbitrability are about whether they agreed to arbitrate the merits of a dispute. Here, there is no question that both Roy Anderson and HBSA contractually agreed to arbitrate the merits of any dispute that may have arisen with Sea Breeze. As such, HBSA’s argument is not whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; it is clear in both contracts that they did. Rather, HBSA questions whether the parties agreed to consolidate. When reviewing arbitration agreements, courts are limited to an analysis of certain gateway matters, such as whether the parties have a valid arbitration agreement at all or whether a concededly binding arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy. Here, it is undisputed that the parties operated under valid, binding arbitration agreements. The parties each invoked the arbitration agreements in their contracts by agreeing to place the disputed matter of consolidation before a special arbitrator with the AAA after mediation of the matter had failed. The special arbitrator’s decision to consolidate is one on the merits of a dispute and not a gateway matter such as arbitrability. There is no evidence in the record and no claim has been made by any party of fraud, duress, misconduct, or another circumstance that would have allowed the chancery court to independently review and possibly overturn the arbitrator’s decision. Accordingly, while the chancery court may have had the limited jurisdiction of determining whether the arbitration agreements between the parties were valid and whether the arbitration was the result of improper means, such claims were never raised and the record does not support such hypothetical claims. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
