R et i r ed Ju st i ce Don W i t t i g assi gned t o t hi s C our t by t he C hi efJust i ce of t he Supr em e Cour t of T exas 1 pur suant t o T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 7 4.00 3 (V ern on S up p. 20 05 ). 

### NUM BER 13-09- 0042 6-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
VER ONIC A

EL LIS A ND PA CES ET TE R BU ILD ERS , INC . D /B/A

C OLD WEL L BA NK ER PA CES ET TE R ST EEL R EA LT ORS , A pp ellan ts,
v . DR . R ON SCH LIM M ER A ND T A NA SC HL IM M ER, A pp ellees . On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L aw N o . 4 o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic e Ya ñ ez a n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d W it ti g M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e W it ti g 1 Some te n months after l it ig ati on w as ini ti ated, appel lan ts , Veroni ca El li s a nd Pace set ter

Bui lde rs , I nc. d/b/ a C old w ell Bank er Pac eset ter

Ste el Rea lt ors, filed a mot ionW i th l i m i te d e x c e p ti o n s , a n a p p e l l a te c o u rt m a y n o t c o n s i d e r m a tte rs o u ts i d e th e a p p e l l a te re c o rd

. 2 N guyen v. I nt ert ex, I nc ., 9 3 S .W .3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 2 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.); S ab ine O f f s ho re Svc. , I nc. v. C i t

y of Port Art hur , 59 5 S

. W

. 2d 84 0, 84 1 ( T ex
. 19 79 ) ( pe r cu ri am ) ( fi nd i ng t ha t ap pe l l ate c ou rt 2 to ab ate a nd c ompel a rb it ra ti on. Appel lee s, Ron and Tana Sc hli mmer, in thei r ini ti al
re spons e to the mot ion , c lai med w aiv er and esto ppel and arg ued that the l ang uag e of the ag re ement di d noti ncl ude t he di spu te b e twe e n the par ti es. The t ri al cour

t den ied the appel lan ts’ moti on. This i nter loc utor y appeal ens ued. W e di smi ss the appeal for w ant o f jur is dic ti on. I. Juris diction In ap pel lan ts’ st atement of jur is dic ti on, t hey i ndi cat e tha t t he tr ial co urt d id not deter mine w hether

the Tex as General Ar bit ra ti on Ac t or the Fede ra l Ar bit ra ti on Ac t app li ed to t he i nst ant d is pute. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 171.001 -. 098 ( Ver non 2006) ( “ TA

A ” ) ; 9 U

. S

. C

. § 2 ( “ F AA ” )

. I t i s l i t t l e w o n d e r b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t s s ubmit ted n o aff ida v it s, no s w or n tes ti mony , or any othe r compet ent p ro of at t he hear ing on t hei r moti on for aba tem ent and to compe l arbitration . Appe llants’ mo tion for arbitration did not inv oke eithe r the T AA or the FAA. Th e brief reco rd o f

t he hea ring doe s su gg est tha t the t rial court
co n sid e re d a cop y o f th e re a l e st a te co n tr a ctbe twe e n ap p e lla n ts an d ap p e lle e s, al th o u gh the o per ati v e doc ument w as not mar ked or int ro duced int o ev ide nce at t he hear ing

. The cont ra ct inc lud ed a one- pag e s peci al prov is ion w hic h, i n turn, incl uded t he ar bit ra ti on cl ause pr ov idi ng : SHOULD T HERE BE A NY DISAGREE MENT BE T W EEN SEL LER AND BU Y ER TH AT C AN N OT BE R ES OL VE D TH R OU GH M ED IATI ON , BO TH BU Y ERA N D S EL LE RA GR EE TO SUBMIT TH IS D IS AG R EE M EN T TO BINDING ARBIT RAT ION W IT H A MU T UAL L Y A G RE E A B L E A RB I T RAT OR. Our onl y so ur ce of t his document is the appendi x to ap pel lan ts' br ief. The t ri al cour t w as 2c a n n o t c o n s i d e r m a tte rs o u ts i d e re c o rd fo r a n y p u rp o s e o th e r th a n d e te rm i n i n g i ts o w n ju ris d i c ti o n ). 3 submi tted no proof, in w ri ti ng or othe rw is e, pe rt ain ing to “P aces etter Buil d e rs, I n c. d/b/a Coldwell Ban ker Pace sette r Steel Realto rs,” altho ugh a non -specif ic “C oldwell Ban ker” is
me ntion ed a s a listing br o k e r. T he e arne st mo ney contract sp ecif ically provi ded that all obl ig ati ons of the par

ti es for pay men t o f brok ers’ fees are c ontai ned i n a s epar ate ag re ement, li kew is e nota pa rtof the record. Cou nsel f o r a p p ell ants admi tted at t he hear ing thatthe oper ati v e medi ati on req uirement of the ar bit rati o n c la u se had notbeen met. Appel lan ts cont end, in thei r sta tement of jur is dic ti on, t hat t he metho d of appel lat e re v iew depend s o n w hether

the d isp u te i s g ov er ned by the TAA or

the FAA

. W e ag re e. Appel lan ts sta te: “No ev ide nce w as pre sent ed in eithe r the motio n, the res ponse , or t he hear ing to sug g estthati ntersta te co m merc e w as impl ic ated re g ar din g the ar bit ra ti on ag re emen t in d isp u te

. Ac cordin g ly , t he TAA a ppl ies to thi s mat ter .” W e do not a g re e beca use ther e w as no ev ide nce sug g est ing the FA A di d notappl y ; nei ther w as any proof pr esent ed i n the motion, the re spons e, or the heari ng , indi cat ing that the TAA appl ied . The
re cord is si len t on the i ss ue. Fur ther , appel lan ts did not ple ad any r eli ance upon t he TAA. T h e t ri a l c o u rt ' s o rd e r d e n yin g a rb it ra t io n wa s in t e rl o c u t o ry. Ap p e ll a t e co u rt s h a ve jurisdiction to conside r imme diate app eals of interlocut oryorders only if a statu te explicitly pr ov ide s a ppel lat e j ur is dic ti on. Sta ry v. D eBo rd , 967 S.W .2d 352- 53 (Tex . 1998) (c it ing Jac k B . An gli

n C o., Inc . v

. T ipp s , 842 S.W .2d 2 66, 272 (Tex . 1992))

. Al thoug h the TAA all ow s a n i nter loc utor

y appeal from t h e d eni al of a moti on to co mpel ar bit ra ti on, t he supreme co urt hel d i n Jac k B. Angl in Co. that an inter loc utor y appeal is not av ail abl e under4

the TAA w h e n a t r i a l c o u rt d e n i e s a mo t i o n t o c o mp e l a r b i t r a t i o n ma d e u n d e r t h e F AA,
ev en th oug h the F AA i tse lf per mits a pa rt y to tak e an int er loc utor y appeal

. Se e J a ck

B. Angl in Co. , 842 S. W . 2d at 27 2. Tex as law prov ide s for int er loc utor y appeal of an order deny ing an a ppl ic ati on to co mpel ar bit ra ti on onl y w hen it is made under sec ti on 171. 021 of the TAA. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 171. 098( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 6) ; In re J. D. Edwards W

or ld Sol uti ons Co. , 87 S.W .3d 546, 551 (Tex

. 2002)

. Appel lan ts’ moti on to c ompel ar bit ra ti on di d noti nv o ke s e ct io n 171. 021 or any othe r prov is ion of the TAA. See id. W hen a reque st to arbitrate o r a mo tion to stay the procee dings und er the FAAis deni ed, t he appe ll ate remedy i s t hroug h mandamus

. See In r e Am . Hom e sta r of Lanca ste r, Inc ., 50 S. W .3d 4 80, 4 83 ( Tex . 200 1) ; EZ Pawn Cor p. v. M anci as , 934 S.W .2d 87, 9 1 ( Tex . 199 6) ; Jac k B . An gli n C o. , 842 S.W .2d a t 272

. Ordin ar il y , an appeal may be p rose cu te d only

from a final j udg ment, and i n order to be final , t he j udg ment mus t dis pose of all par ti es and al l is sues pendi ng before the c our t. Schl ipf v. Ex xon Cor p. , 644 S.W .2d 453, 454 (Tex .1982) (p er cu ri am); N. Eas t Indep. Sch. Di st. v. Aldr

idg e , 4 0 0 S

. W

. 2 d 8 9 3 , 8 9 5 ( Te x . 1 9 6 6 ) ; NCRC or p. v . M r. Pengu in Tuxedo Renta l & Sales, In c. , 663 S .W .2d 1 07, 1 07-0 8 (Te x . App .–E astlan d 198 3, w rit ref ’d n.r.e.); Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Hotton Aviation Co., Inc. , 6 2 0 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 3 (T e x. Ci v. App.–E ast lan d 1981, w ri t ref'd n.r .e.) ; Citi zens Nat’

l Ba n k o f Be aum ont v

. C all away , 597 S.W .2d 4 65, 4 66 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–Bea umont 1980, w ri t ref'd n.r .e.)

. W it hout dis pute, the
or der deny ing ar bit ra ti on w as not a final j udg ment. T he Dallas Court of

Appe als consid ered a scena rio w here the on ly mot ion be fore the t ri al jud g e w as Ol shan' s p lea i n abat ement, w her e i t s oug ht t he appl ic ati on of t he F AA.T he co nt r act i n Alli ed- Br uce ev i denced a t r ansact i on a f f ect i ng i nt er st at e com m er ce i n par t beca use 3 th e p a rti e s re s i d e d i n d i ff e re n t s ta te s
. S e e L & L K e m p w o o d A s s o c s ., L .P . v . O m e g a B u i l d e rs , I n c ., 9 S. W

. 3d 125, 127

. T he p ar t i es t o t he co nt r act i n Kem pw ood al so r esi ded i n di f f er ent st at es — G eor gi a an d T exas — and t he r enov at i on wor k on H oust on a par t m ent s was t o be don e by a T exas b usi ness f or G eor gi a owner s. See i d. N o such cl ar i t y i s pr ov i ded i n t he m eager r ecor d bef or e us. W hi l e ap pel l ees’ pet i t i on a l l eges dom i ci l es i n T ex as , t he s e a l l eg ati on s w ere de ni ed by ap pe l l an t s ’ ori gi na l an s w er. 5 In re Olsha n Foun d. Rep air Co., L.L .C. , 2 7 7 S .W .3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 9 (T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 2 0 0 9 , o rig. pr oceed ing ). The record di d notsh ow the f ili n g o f

a m oti on or

appl ic ati on to co mpel
ar bit ra ti on pursuantto the TAA. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 171.098

. How ev er , t he tr ial j udg e's order ex pr ess ly deni ed Ol shan' s re q uestfor a rb it ra ti on unde r the FAA

. Id. As a re sul t, the appropr iat e re medy for re v iew by Ol shan w as to fil e a p eti ti on for a w ri t of mandamus and not a n i nter loc utor y appeal

. Id. Unl ess the cont ra ct at i ss ue specif ically

ex clude s the ap plication of the FAA , the FAA ma y app ly , even if th e T AA also appl ies

. In r

e Ol shan Foun dati

on R epai

r Co. , 277 S.W .3d a t 127 , 132

. The Un it ed St ates Supreme C our t hel d i n Allied-Bruce thatthe prov is ion of the Fede ral Arbitration Act that “ma kes en forcea ble a wr itten arbitration provi sion in ‘a con tract
ev ide nci n g a t ra n s a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g c o mmerce’ ” extends to any co ntr actaff ect ing co mmerc e, as far as the Commer ce Cl ause of t he Uni ted Stat es Con sti tuti on w il l re ach. Allied-Bruce T e r m i n i x C o s. v. Dob son , 513 U .S. 265, 274- 75 ( U. S. 1 995) ; see als o L &L K em pwood Ass ocs ., L.P. v. Om ega Bu ilder s, Inc ., 9 S. W .3d 1 25, 1 27 ( Tex

. 1999)

. The Fed er al 3 Ar bit ra ti on Ac t, sec ti on 2, prov ide s t hat a “ w ri tten prov is ion in any mari ti me transac ti on or a c ontractev ide nci ng a t ra n sacti on i nv olv ing co mmerc e to set tl e by ar bit ra ti on a cont ro v ersy

thereafter ar isi n g out of suc h c ontractor transac ti on .
. . sh all be v ali d, ir re v ocabl e, an d enforc eabl e, s av e upon suc h g ro unds as ex is t at law or i n eq uit y for t he
rev ocat ion of

any contract.” See 9 U .S.C . § 2.6

W e need no t d eci de w hether the FAA g ov er ns the p arti es' ar bit ra ti on ag re ement. Und er the TAA, a par

ty is e n ti tl e d to an i nter loc utor y appeal from an or der

deny ing an appl ic ati on to co mpel ar bit ra ti on onl y if it is “made under Sect ion 171.021 [of the TAA]

. . . .” In re J. D. Edwar

ds W or ld Sol uti ons Co. , 87 S.W .3d a t 551 ( ci ti ng T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17 1.0 21(a )(1)). Se cti on 171. 098 prov ide s i n per ti nent par

t: (a ) A par

ty may appeal a j udg ment or

dec re e ent er ed unde r thi s c hapter or an orde r: (1 ) deny ing an a ppl ic ati on to co mpel ar bit ra ti on made under Sec ti on 171.021 ; ( 2 ) g ra nti ng an a ppl i c a t i o n t o s t a y a r b i t r a t i on made under Sect ion 171.023

. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 171. 098( a) (1 ), ( 2)

. No moti on to co mpel ar bit ra ti on under se cti on 171. 021 w as filed i n thi s c ase. As w e not ed abov e, unles s the contractsp eci fical ly ex cl udes the a ppl ic ati on of the FAA, t h e F AA may

appl y , ev en i f the TAA al so appl ies

. In r e Ol s ha n F ou ndat ion R epair Co. , 277 S.W .3d a t 127

. A c ontractthatsp eci fical ly i nv okes the TAA i s d eemed to ex cl ude the F AA. Id. W e al so note that under the eq ual inferenc e r ule , “ W hen t he c ircums tanc es are equally consiste nt w ith eith er of tw o facts, neithe r fact may be inf erred.” City of K eller
v. W il son , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 13 ( Tex . 200 5)

. The Tex as Supr eme Cour t has al so hel d tha t the mere fact that a c ontractaff ect s i ntersta te c ommerc e, thus tr ig g er ing the F AA, does not n eces sar il y

pr ecl ude enfor cementunder the TAA as w ell

. See Am . Std. v. Brown sville Indep. Sc h. D is t. (In r

e D . Wil son Con str

. C o.) , 196 S.W .3d 7 74, 7 80 ( Tex . 200 6)

. Here, neith er the cont ra ct at i ss ue, n or the moti on to co mpel ar bit ra ti on, s ati sfymin imal7

jur is dic ti onal facts or

pl eadi ng s t o appl y

ei ther the FAA or the TAA. The Tex as Supr eme Cour t als o disc uss ed the f act ors that deter mine w hether the FAA pr eempts the TAA: (1 ) the a g re ement i s i n w ri ti ng ; ( 2) i t i nv olv es int ersta te c ommerc e; (3 ) itca n w it hst and s cr uti ny under tradi ti onal contr actdef enses ; and (4) state law aff ect s the enforc eabi li ty of the ag re ement. In re Nexi on Health at

H um ble , Inc ., 173 S. W .3d 6 7, 69 (T ex. 2005 ) ( citing 9 U.S.C. § 2). How ever, in this case, t he lack of an ad equate record doe s not allow us to answer t h re e o f the four f acto rs. W e recognize that the trial court pr oce e d i n g s c a l l fo r

d e t e r mi n a t i o n b y

a s u mm a r

y p r o c e e d i n g , w i t h t h e b u r d e n o n the
mov ing par

ty to show a v ali d ag re ement t o ar bit ra te. In r e Weekley

Hom es, L.P

. , 180 S.W .3d 1 27, 130 (Tex

. 2005)

. Ev en in a summar y proceed ing , it w oul d seem that in or der to de monstrate a v ali d and enforc eabl e agreement s ubj ectto int er loc utor y appeal , mi nimal jur is dic ti onal facts and av er ments ar e nec ess ar y . See In re J . D . Ed wards World Soluti ons Co. , 87 S. W . 3d at 55 1 ( “U nder the TAA, a par

ty i s e nti tl ed to an i nter loc utor y appeal from
an o rder den y ing an app lication to comp el arbitratio n on ly if it is " m ade under S e ction 171.021 [of the TAA] .

. . .") ( emphasi s i n or ig ina l) ; see als o OD L Ser vs . v . C onoco Phi

ll ips Co. , 264 S.W .3d 399, 411 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 2008, no pet.) (st ati ng that under the plai n lang uag e of

secti on 171.098( a) (1 ), if the appli cat ion to compel ar bit ra ti on i s n ot “made under

[TAA] Sec ti on 171. 021,” th e n n o inter loc utor y appeal l ies from a ru li ng den y ing that motion ; ODL's mo tion w as not ma de unde r T AA sect ion 17 1.0 21; theref ore the t ri al cour

t' s orde r deny ing that motion coul d not hav e been one “ deny ing an a ppl ic ati on to com pel arbitra tion m ade und er Sectio n 17 1.0 21 [o f the T AA]. ”) W e must addr ess our jur is dic ti on on our ow n moti on whe n ne cessar y . Bi son Bui ldi ng M ater ial s, Ltd. v. Aldr

idg e , 263 S.W .3d 6 9, 72 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ]8

200 6, pe t. granted ). If we conclude w e ha v e no jurisdiction, w e mu st dism iss the ap pea l. Id. Beca use sta tute s allow ing i nte rlocuto ry app eals de rogate t h e g e n e ral rule that o nly final j udg ments ar e appeal abl e, w e must str ic tl y cons tr ue suc h sta tutes

. Id. (cit in g Sta ry, 967 S. W .2d a t 352 -5 3; A m. O n li n e In c
. v. W

il lia ms , 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 1 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1992, no p et.) ( “Tex as co u rt s s tr ic tl y co nst ru e s tatut es au th or i z i ng i nt er l oc ut or y a pp ea l s .” )) s e e a ls o Tober v. Turne r of Tex., Inc. , 668 S.W .2d 831 , 835 (Tex. App. –Au stin 19 84, no w rit). W e ha v e jurisdiction to rev iew interlocut oryorders only i f a statu te expl ic it ly pr ov ide s. Bi

son , 263 S.W .3d at 73. The cour t of appeal s’ as sumpti on of appel lat e jur is dic ti on ov er

an i nter loc utor

y order w hen notex pr ess ly

authori z ed to do s o by st atute is j ur is dic ti onal fundamental er ro r
. New Y or k U nder wri ter s Ins. C o. v

. Sa nchez , 799 S. W .2 d 6 7 7 , 6 7 9 (T e x. 19 9 0 ) (ci ti n g Long v . H um ble Oi

l & R efi nin g C o. , 380 S. W .2d 5 54 (Tex . 196 4) ; McCauley v. Conso lidate d Unde rwriters , 304 S. W .2d 265 (1957 )). II. Conclusion Beca use the record d o e s not a ff ir mati v ely demons tr ate o ur

st atuto ry

j ur is dic ti on under se cti on 171. 021 of the T AA , o r other w is e, w e di smi ss the appeal for w ant o f jur is dic ti on.
DO N W ITTIG J u s t i c e
Del iv er ed and filed the 28th day of Janua ry , 201 0.