Source: http://texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Morgan-Stanley-and-Co-Inc-Tex-2009-by-Medina-legal-capacity-and-arbitration-agreement-who-decides-issue.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:01:51+00:00

Document:
issues like the one here, that the signor lacked the mental capacity to assent.
question to the arbitrator. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Wainwright, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Brister filed a concurring opinion.
Justice Hecht filed a dissenting opinion.
Justice O’Neill did not participate in the decision.
period, Albers made gifts to her mother, her sister, and herself from Taylor’s estate.
The trial court refused to compel arbitration.
arbitrator should determine the issue of mental capacity to contract.
consider only issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate. 9 U.
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co., 388 U.S. 395, 404 (1967).
agreement to arbitrate itself. Id. at 402-04.
proven to the satisfaction of the court, as Taylor’s guardian argues.
reserved the question in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444 n.1.
Florida Supreme Court. Id. at 449.
the arbitration agreement depended on the distinction between void and voidable contracts.
Id. at 448. Instead, the Court reiterated three controlling principles of federal arbitration law.
First, that an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract. Id. at 445.
remainder of the contract.” Id. at 446.
the signor lacked the mental capacity to assent, Spahr v. Secco, 330 F.3d 1266 (C.A.10 2003).
issues, including the defense in this case, that the signor lacked the mental capacity to assent.
of contract formation, we do so as well.
of a contract-formation defense to an arbitration clause.
sellers had agreed to arbitrate any dispute, and some had never signed the underlying contract.
by the agreement, courts, rather than the arbitrator, should determine the issue”).
would decide the issue. City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 658–59 (Tex. 1994).
agreement to arbitrate and, as such, are matters for the court, not the arbitrator.
to yield the question to the arbitrator.
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
benefit from the contract containing the arbitration provision.” In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.
3d 732, 741 (Tex. 2005); see also In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127, 131 (Tex. 2005).
other common law duties, or federal law. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, 166 S.W.3d at 740-41; see, e.g., R.
advantageous relations, and quantum meruit); Westmoreland v. Sadoux, 299 F.3d 462, 467 (5th Cir.
clause is legitimately called into question”); Toledano v. O’Connor, 501 F. Supp. 2d 127, 140 (D.D.C.
477 F. Supp. 2d 230, 234-35 (D. Me. 2007) (“The distinction first articulated in Prima Paint Corp.
and thus must be decided by a court).
actually agreed to be bound.”); Operis Group, Corp. v. E.I. at Doral, LLC, 973 So. 2d 485, 488 (Fla. Dist.
based on behavior/conduct of a party (i.e. fraudulent inducement)”).
supported by substantial evidence, that a contract never existed at all”); Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist.
that dispute”) (internal citations omitted); I.S. Joseph Co. v. Mich. Sugar Co., 803 F.2d 396, 400 (8th Cir.
intend to enter into the agreement which contained an arbitration clause.”); Interocean Shipping Co. v.
arbitration, the trial court must determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists”); Am. Med.
agreement to arbitrate); see also Large v. Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp., 292 F.3d 49, 53-54 (1st Cir.
rule does apply to mental capacity defenses).
7 See, e.g., Stephen K. Huber, The Arbitration Jurisprudence of the Fifth Circuit: Round IV, 39 Tex.
(criticizing Primerica as a “bizarre and inexplicable misreading” of the separability doctrine).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.