The Texarkana Court of Appeals has upheld a mediation settlement agreement (“MSA”) in a divorce proceeding where the mediator was called upon to resolve a factual dispute concerning the scope of the mediation.
In In re Allen, No. 06-10-00085-CV (Tex. App. – Texarkana, March 30, 2011), Daphne and James Allen entered into a mediation settlement agreement during divorce proceedings which resulted in the division of a large piece of property that included the marital residence. Attached to the MSA was “Exhibit B,” a map of the property that was color coded to show exactly which property interests would go to each party and the path of an access easement. The MSA stated the parties agreed it was “binding on the parties,” “and not subject to revocation, repudiation or withdrawal of consent.” The MSA also appointed a mediator who would act “as sole arbiter of any disagreement with regard to the drafting and intent” of the final MSA.
After final execution of the MSA, a dispute arose which involved a portion of fifty-nine acres not specifically designated by Exhibit B as the property of either party. The mediator resolved the dispute by awarding a portion of the unassigned property to each party based on the language in the agreement which stated she would have sole authority to resolve any disagreement regarding the final MSA. James Allen challenged the resulting division. During a hearing, the trial court took testimony regarding the dispute and determined that “the parties agreements included arbitration by [the mediator] to be binding, therefore, pursuant to Texas Family Code Section 6.601(b) the court will enter an order reflecting the arbiter’s award.” James Allen appealed.
The Texarkana Court of Appeals first held that although binding arbitration was not ordered in the case, the parties agreed to be bound by the MSA. According to the court, under the Texas Family Code Daphne Allen was entitled to a judgment based on the mediator’s resolution of the disputed property and the scope of the MSA was the only remaining issue.
Both parties agreed the fifty-nine unassigned acres at issue were discussed at the mediation but the final MSA and Exhibit B failed to clearly indicate any agreement as to those acres. While James Allen testified that he expressed concerns regarding the division of the property to his attorney because the color coding was not visible on a faxed copy of Exhibit B he received during the mediation, and he even marked his claim on an additional map, he signed the final MSA which included Exhibit B. According to the Court of Appeals, this bound him to the agreement and to the resolution of any disputes by the mediator. The court further held the mediator’s resolution of the dispute was properly within the MSA because the fifty-nine acres were discussed at the mediation, and it was the mediator’s understanding that the parties wished to divide all of the property, including the fifty-nine acres, and the parties intended to follow certain boundary lines when they divided the property.
Because the mediator was called upon to resolve a factual dispute concerning the scope of the mediation and no arbitration occurred, the Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment which enforced the MSA and the mediator’s related division of the unassigned property.
Technorati Tags: ADR, law, Mediation
Related Posts
Based on Delegation Provision in AAA Consumer Rules, Missouri Appellate Court Orders Putative Class-Action Privacy Case to Arbitration
Houston COA Orders Arbitration After Man Ratifies Procedurally Unconscionable Agreement
Fifth Circuit Affirms Arbitrator’s Decision in Insurance Dispute
Texas’ Fifth COA Holds Doctrine of Res Judicata Bars Case Decided by Kentucky Arbitration
Texas Supreme Court Rules on Enforceability of Mediated Settlement Agreement
2011 Mediation Case Law
