Court Opinion

ID: 9594241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:28:23.019766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:43.387605
License: Public Domain

Judge METZGER
dissents.
I respectfully dissent. I believe the trial court correctly determined that defendant Van Vleet “has failed to establish that the parties agreed to arbitrate or that the purported arbitration agreement was applicable to the alleged transactions between [the Ey-chners] and defendants.”
The pleadings in this case do not support Van Vleet’s demand for arbitration. The complaint does not allege that Van Vleet acted as an agent or employee of Hutton or, indeed, that he was acting within the course and scope of his employment at all in the transactions at issue. It does not allege any connection whatsoever between the Ey-chners’ accounts at Hutton and the transactions now in dispute.
Likewise, the trial court properly determined that the arbitration provision in the Hutton contract was not intended to include the dispute that gave rise to the lawsuit. The contract specifically provides that it is binding on the Eychners and their heirs, executors, successors, administrators, assigns, committee, and conservators but that it is binding only on Hutton and its assigns and successors. There is no evidence in the record or even an allegation that Van Vleet is a successor or assignee of Hutton. Thus, the terms of the contract Van Vleet relies on belie his argument.
Additionally, the facts in the record provide no assistance to Van Vleet’s position. The record is devoid of any hint of a connection between the Eychners (or their transactions) and Hutton. All of the checks show Van Vleet as payee, and neither Hutton’s name nor a Hutton account number appears on the cheeks. There is nothing to show that any of the checks were deposited in a Hutton account or that Hutton received any of the money involved.
Moreover, the record contains a stipulation/agreement dated April 1991, between Van Vleet and the Eychners in which Van Vleet individually promised to pay to the Eychners the $66,019.17 he owed them as of that date. The stipulation/agreement goes on to provide:
Because of Rick Van Vleet’s security license, Orin Eychner and Julia Eychner agree that they shall not cause a judgment to be entered against Van Vleet, as long as he makes payments in accordance with the enclosed schedule and has otherwise complied with the other terms of this stipulation.
[[Image here]]
In the event that Rick Vanvleet [sic] shall fail to make any of the payments when due, or otherwise defaults on any other terms and conditions of this stipulation, then Orin Eychner and Julia Eychner, or the survivor, shall have the right to immediately seek and obtain a judgment for the entire amount which is due and owing. Rick Van Vleet agrees not to file an answer.
[[Image here]]
If suit is necessary under the terms of this agreement, Rick Van Vleet agrees to pay to Orin Eychner and Julia Eychner, or the survivor, attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, fees and other charges.
Neither this document nor its accompanying promissory note mentions Hutton, any Hutton account, or any arbitration.
The majority here holds that “only those transactions between [Van Vleet] and the Eychners which involve Hutton accounts are subject to arbitration.” However, there is nothing in this record to indicate that the transactions were related either factually or legally to the Eychners’ accounts with Hutton. Lowell Staats Mining Co. v. Pioneer *493Uravan, Inc., 596 F.Supp. 1428 (D.Colo.1984). The burden of showing this nexus falls on Van Vleet, who is the one seeking arbitration. He has utterly failed to meet it. Therefore, there is no reason to conduct a hearing.
Consequently, I would affirm the trial court’s order and deny Van Vleet’s request for arbitration.