BEAUMONT – The 9th Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the decision by the 284th District Court in Montgomery County to deny The Sinclair Group's motion to compel arbitration in its dispute with Henri Haggblom, a former manager of the company.
The court noted April 12 that the parties' written agreements, "specifically addressed the method to be used in valuing a limited partner’s membership interest" and were therefore pertinent to the central issue of the case.
According to the opinion, in 2015, Sinclair purchased Haggblom's 5 percent membership interest in the company after his contracts were terminated. An independent appraiser concluded that the membership interest had accrued a "fair market value" value exceeding $1 million.
Sinclair then sent a letter to the appraiser's firm complaining the appraiser had failed to follow “the agreements of Sinclair Group and Mr. Haggblom relative to [valuing Haggblom’s interest],” the opinion states.
The court noted that the record did not show the appraiser ever submitted a final report on Haggblom's membership interest.
Haggblom then brought the suit against Sinclair in April 2017 in the Montgomery County District Court and asked the court to confirm the appraiser’s determination and render a judgment against Sinclair.
Sinclair responded to the suit in May 2017 by filing a motion to compel arbitration. One week later, the Montgomery County court denied the motion.
Haggblom argued the written agreement between him and Sinclair provide "for a separate, binding mechanism by which to determine the value of [his] interest in the Sinclair Group."
Sinclair argued that the agreement required the parties to arbitrate "any and all disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of or relating to this agreement, including without limitation, claims based on contract, tort, or statute."
During its review, the court noted that under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, "a written agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable if an arbitration agreement exists and the claims a party seeks to have arbitrated are claims that fall within the scope of parties’ arbitration agreement."
The court concluded that the trial court erred in denying Sinclair's motion to compel arbitration and that "the dispute over whether the appraiser failed to follow the appraisal method established by the parties in their written agreements is an arbitrable issue."
Justice Hollis Horton delivered the opinion of the court on April 12. Judges Leanne Johnson and Charles Kreger concurred.