 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodriguez v. Ed's Mobile Homes of Bossier City12/8/2004
AFFIRMED.
Purchasers of a mobile home sued the manufacturer and dealer for redhibition and attorney fees. The manufacturer alleged the existence of an arbitration agreement and brought a dilatory exception of prematurity. The trial court denied the exception, concluding that the arbitration agreement was adhesionary. Because we conclude that the purchasers' error vitiated any consent given, we find that the arbitration agreement is void between the parties and affirm the trial court's judgment, although on different grounds.
On May 23, 2000, Jason and Misty Rodriguez executed a purchase agreement for a mobile home from Ed's Mobile Homes in Bossier City, and made a down payment of $7,000.00. The reverse side of the document provided that title would pass to the Rodriguezes when the purchase price was paid in full or when they secured financing. It also stated that if they failed to complete the purchase for any reason, Ed's would be entitled to that "portion of the cash deposit which will reimburse for expenses and other losses.and [Ed's] shall have all the rights of a seller upon breach of contract...."
On June 16, 2000, Jason and Misty met with a representative from Ed's at a restaurant in Many, Louisiana, to sign the closing papers for the mobile home. Along with signing several act of sale forms, they also signed a Dispute Resolution and Disclosure Agreement. The arbitration agreement states, in part, that:
he parties acknowledge and agree that this Mediation and/or Arbitration Agreement is a condition of the sale and is a material part of the consideration for the sale of the Home. ny disputes or claims of any kind or nature...shall first be submitted for resolution through Mediation.... If a dispute is not resolved through Mediation the parties agree to settle the dispute through binding Arbitration....
(Emphasis added.)
On February 14, 2003, Jason and Misty filed a suit for redhibition, alleging numerous defects in their mobile home which River Chase and Ed's were unable to repair. River Chase filed a dilatory exception of prematurity on February 19, 2004, alleging that the parties contractually agreed to arbitration of the dispute pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Agreement; thus, the suit was premature. Jason and Misty opposed the motion, and the trial court heard the matter on May 17, 2004.
On June 21, 2004, the trial court denied River Chase's motion, concluding that "the print [on the arbitration agreement] is almost impossible to read, the defendants have failed to avail themselves of these provisions until after suit was filed, and the provisions are unduly burdensome and extremely harsh." River Chase appeals the ruling.
APPLICABLE LAW
In urging us to uphold the arbitration agreement as valid and enforceable, River Chase argues that this court's holding in Dennis v. CMH Manufacturing, Inc. is applicable.
In Dennis, the trial court concluded that it retained jurisdiction over a personal injury claim and a products liability claim and found that all other claims were subject to binding arbitration. This court affirmed its ruling on the personal injury claim but concluded that the arbitration agreement contemplated the products liability claim; therefore, that claim was subject to binding arbitration. However, unlike this case, the Dennis court focused on the scope of the arbitration agreement, not on its validity. When the trial court and this court concluded that the plaintiff's claims in Dennis were subject to binding arbitration, we, necessarily, concluded that the parties had already entered into a valid contract under state law, unlike the instant matter. Thu
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|