Opinion ID: 2834306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Warranty Companies Waive Arbitration?

Text: Finally, the Culls argue the warranty companies cannot object to arbitration for two reasons. First, the warranty companies originally requested arbitration (which the Culls opposed), so it could be argued that it is unfair to hold the Culls to their original position without holding the warranty companies to theirs. Of course, we cannot hold both parties to their original positions as those positions were contradictory. More important, while the parties’ original demands are relevant factors, the test is the totality of the circumstances. Looking to all the circumstances, it is quite clear from the parties’ extensive co-participation in months of discovery that everyone waived their right to arbitration — whether they asserted that right early (as did the warranty companies) or late (as did the Culls). Second, the Culls argue that the only objection to the trial court’s order compelling arbitration was filed by Perry Homes, not the warranty companies. It is true that only Perry Homes’ attorneys signed the motion, but in that motion and at the hearing held on it they represented that they were authorized to do so on behalf of all the Defendants. If the Culls wanted to question their authority to speak for the warranty companies, they should have done so by sworn motion. [117]    Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, vacate the arbitration award, and remand this case to the trial court for a prompt trial. ______________________________ Scott Brister