Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00376-CV

James A. WINSLOW,

Appellant

v.

D.R. HORTON AMERICA'S 

D.R. HORTON AMERICA’S BUILDER,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 372383

The Honorable Liza Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 29, 2013

AFFIRMED

This appeal arises from a county court at law’s de novo review of James A. Winslow’s 

claim after the claim was dismissed by a small claims court. Winslow asserts that the trial court 

erred in dismissing his claim seeking damages for D. R. Horton America’s Builder’s failure to 

repair alleged roof defects and damage D. R. Horton allegedly caused to the base flashing of his 

home. The trial court dismissed the claim because paragraph 17 of the Earnest Money 

Contract/Escrow Instructions entered into between Winslow and D. R. Horton mandated a 

dispute resolution procedure applicable to every dispute between the parties occurring before and 
04-12-00376-CV

- 2 -

after the closing of Winslow’s purchase of his home. The contract required the parties to submit 

their claim to a mediator1 and then to binding arbitration. The contract further stated that in 

making the agreement, the parties “are waiving their rights to FILE A LAWSUIT relating to any 

dispute between them.” Although Winslow acknowledges this contractual provision, the crux of 

Winslow’s complaint on appeal appears to be that he has the option to pursue his claim in small 

claims court under: (1) the AAA’s Home Construction Arbitration Rules and Mediation 

Procedures; (2) the AAA’s Supplementary Procedures for Consumer-Related Disputes; and (3) 

the AAA’s Consumer Due Process Protocol.2

 

With regard to the AAA’s Home Construction Arbitration Rules, the parties’ contract did 

not expressly provide for arbitration by the AAA under those rules.3 Instead the contract 

provided for the arbitration to “be administered and conducted by the American Arbitration 

Association (“AAA”) in accordance with ... THE RULES OF THE AAA.” Because the contract 

 1

In his briefing, Winslow makes several references to the small claims court’s order referring the parties to 

mediation with Bexar County’s Dispute Resolution Center as being contrary to the parties’ agreement. The order 

before this court, however, is the trial court’s order dismissing the claim because paragraph 17 of the parties’ 

agreement required them to arbitrate their claims. The trial court’s order does not contain any ruling pertaining to 

mediation.

2

Apart from his belief that he had the option to pursue his claim in small claims court, the basis for Winslow’s 

opposition to arbitration is unclear. See Robert G. Bone, Party Rulemaking: Making Procedural Rules Through 

Party Choice, 90 TEX. L. REV. 1329, 1366 (2012) (“while the evidence is mixed, there are empirical studies that 

show consumers fare reasonably well in some important types of consumer arbitration. Reputable organizations like 

the American Arbitration Association (AAA) have incentives to provide reasonably fair arbitration procedures in 

order to preserve a reputation for evenhandedness.”); see also Sarah Rudolph Cole, Of Babies and Bathwater: The 

Arbitration Fairness Act and the Supreme Court’s Recent Arbitration Jurisprudence, 48 Hous. L. Rev. 457, 473 

(Fall 2011) (“in the vast majority of consumer arbitrations, consumers pay fewer fees than they would in court, 

obtain results faster than they would in court, and win greater relief than they would likely win in court”). Although 

Winslow makes reference to unconscionability in his briefing, we note that Winslow did not assert the affirmative 

defense of unconscionability or otherwise present argument to the trial court that the arbitration provision was 

unconscionable. See Corbindale, L.P. v. Kotts Capital Holdings Ltd. P’ship, 316 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (noting allegation that arbitration provision is unconscionable must be 

affirmatively pled or it is waived and cannot be considered for first time on appeal); Parks v. Developers Sur. & 

Indem. Co., 302 S.W.3d 920, 923-24 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (same); see also EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 

934 S.W.3d 87, 90 (Tex. 1996) (“there is nothing per se unconscionable about arbitration agreements”). 3

See Home Construction and Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures ARB-1(a) available at 

http://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules/searchrules/rulesdetail?doc=ADRSTG_004225&_afrLoop=430376365178628&

_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=xxlyqohd0_1#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dxxlyqohd0_1%26_afrLoop%3D4

30376365178628%26doc%3DADRSTG_004225%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrlstate%3Dxxlyqohd0_57. 
04-12-00376-CV

- 3 -

did not specifically refer to the Home Construction Arbitration Rules, the dispute between 

Winslow and D. R. Horton is governed under the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules and 

Mediation Procedures.4

With regard to the Consumer-Related Disputes Supplementary Procedures, the AAA has 

“the discretion to apply or not to apply the Supplementary Procedures and the parties will be able 

to bring any disputes concerning the application or non-application to the attention of the 

arbitrator.”5

 If the arbitrator or the AAA decides to apply the Supplementary Procedures, 

“’[p]arties can still take their claims to a small claims court.”6 Therefore, before Winslow could 

proceed in small claims court under the Supplementary Procedures, either the arbitrator or the 

AAA must first decide that those procedures are applicable to Winslow’s claim.

Finally, the Consumer Due Process Protocol is “a set of privately developed fairness 

standards used by the AAA in administering consumer arbitrations.” Peter B. Rutledge & 

 4

See id. (introductory note); see also Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures R-1 available at 

http://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules/searchrules/rulesdetail?doc=ADRSTG_004130&_afrLoop=430815005468032&

_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=15a3ngv1yu_1#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3D15a3ngv1yu_1%26_afrLoop%3

D430815005468032%26doc%3DADRSTG_004130%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrlstate%3D15a3ngv1yu_57 (“The parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration 

agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter AAA) 

under its Commercial Arbitration Rules or for arbitration by the AAA of a domestic commercial dispute without 

specifying particular rules.”) 5

Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures R-1* available at: 

http://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules/searchrules/rulesdetail?doc=ADRSTG_004130&_afrLoop=430815005468032&

_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=15a3ngv1yu_1#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3D15a3ngv1yu_1%26_afrLoop%3

D430815005468032%26doc%3DADRSTG_004130%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrlstate%3D15a3ngv1yu_57; Consumer-Related Disputes Supplementary Procedures C-1(a) available at:

http://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules/searchrules/rulesdetail?doc=ADRSTG_004127&_afrLoop=432717224408458&

_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=12pqqsz5d5_50#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3D12pqqsz5d5_50%26_afrLoop

%3D432717224408458%26doc%3DADRSTG_004127%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrlstate%3D12pqqsz5d5_106. Because the Supplementary Procedures apply to the “purchase of standardized, 

consumable goods or services,” and the “product or service must be for personal or household use,” the arbitrator or

the AAA would also be required to determine whether the Supplementary Procedures are applicable to the purchase 

of a house. See id. at C-1(a); see also Amy J. Schmitz, Legislating in the Light: Considering Empirical Data in 

Crafting Arbitration Reforms, 15 HARV. NEGOT. L. REV. 115, 140 n.137 (Spring 2010) (noting residential 

construction cases are excluded from the Supplementary Procedures).

6

Consumer-Related Disputes Supplementary Procedures C-1(d) available at: 

http://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules/searchrules/rulesdetail?doc=ADRSTG_004127&_afrLoop=432717224408458&

_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=12pqqsz5d5_50#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3D12pqqsz5d5_50%26_afrLoop

%3D432717224408458%26doc%3DADRSTG_004127%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrlstate%3D12pqqsz5d5_106. 
04-12-00376-CV

- 4 -

Christopher R. Drahozal, Contract and Choice, 2013 B.Y.U. L. REV. 1, 31 (2013). Although 

these protocols are self-regulated and not mandatory, the AAA has been active in conducting 

protocol compliance review and refusing to administer cases that involve a protocol violation. 

Anjanette H. Raymond, It Is Time the Law Begins to Protect Consumers from Significantly OneSided Arbitration Clauses Within Contracts of Adhesion, 91 NEB. L. REV. 666, 694 (2013). 

However, whether the AAA will “refuse to conduct arbitration” because the contract fails to 

comply with the protocols “is a determination that [must] be left to the arbitrator in the first 

instance.” Estep v. World Fin. Corp. of Ill., 735 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1034 (C.D. Ill. 2010). “In the 

event that arbitration is denied based on failure to comply with the Consumer Due Process 

Protocol,” it would appear that Winslow’s claim “may be referred back to” the small claims 

court. Id. Therefore, similar to the Supplementary Procedures, the AAA must first deny an 

arbitration claim based on a contract’s failure to comply with the Consumer Due Process 

Protocol before a party would be permitted to proceed in small claims court.

Because the AAA rules and protocols relied upon by Winslow to file his claim in small 

claims court are inapplicable or require the arbitrator or the AAA to first exercise discretion in 

determining the applicability of the rules or protocols, the trial court did not err in granting D. R. 

Horton’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice