HOUSTON — The Court of Appeals in the First District of Texas has upheld the trial court's decision to deny Lexus of Clear Lake's request to force Carol Zendeh Del into arbitration. Justice Russell Lloyd issued his opinion on April 14th.
Lexus of Clear Lake dealership had argued County Court at Law No. 3 in Galveston County, Texas made a mistake by denying their motion because the arbitration agreement did not exist or was unconscionable, in finding the arbitration provision needed to be thought of in and of itself, that the same provision is unreal since it gave rights in the collateral that wasn't mandated to fo through the arbitration process, and the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law's $50,000 limit.
Two years ago in July, Zendeh Del bought a 2018 Lexus GX 460 from the dealership. She signed a "Buyer's Order" which outlined all the details related to the vehicle's sale. In February of the following year she filed a lawsuit against the dealership that accused Fred Forshey, the salesman she purchased the vehicle from, of misrepresenting it's safety features.
In their motion to compel filed that April, the dealership argued the signed Buyer's Order contained an arbitration clause and since Zendeh Del's claims stemmed from the purchase of the vehicle, it's within the scope of the clause. Shortly after, Zehdeh Del responded to their request to the court objecting the motion since she alleged the arbitration provision was added after she signed the contract.
In May of 2019, the trial court denied the motion and an appeal followed.
The Court of Appeals found there was enough evidence in court records that the trial court could have decided a valid agreement to arbitrate did not exist and ruled no error was made in rejecting Lexus of Clear Lake's motion to compel.