Opinion ID: 901341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conversion of a Motion to Dismiss to a Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: [¶ 6.] In determining our standard of review, we observe that although this matter is before us on a motion to dismiss, both parties submitted matters outside the pleadings, and the trial court did not explicitly exclude them. [3] However, we also observe that neither party objected to the trial court's consideration of those matters and neither party raised the issue on appeal. Therefore, we review the trial court's ruling as a motion for summary judgment. Tibke v. McDougall, 479 N.W.2d 898, 903-04 (S.D.1992) (stating that when the record indicates that matters outside of the pleadings were considered by the trial court, motions to dismiss are reviewed and disposed of as motions for summary judgment). [4] [¶ 7.]Because we review this matter as a summary judgment, we restrict our review to determining whether the record before us discloses any genuine issues of material fact and, if not, whether the ... court committed any errors of law. Switlik v. Hardwicke Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 852, 857-58 (3dCir.1981) ( assuming that the trial court had converted a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment). In performing that review, the construction and legal effect of a written [arbitration] contract are to be determined by the court as a question of law except where the meaning of the language depends upon disputed extrinsic evidence. May Const. Co., Inc. v. Benton School Dist. No. 8, 320 Ark. 147, 895 S.W.2d 521, 523 (1995) (citing Duvall v. Massachusetts Indem. & Life Ins. Co., 295 Ark. 412, 748 S.W.2d 650 (1988)). We review legal questions concerning arbitration agreements de novo. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 947-48, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 1926, 131 L.Ed.2d 985, 996 (1995).