Court Opinion

ID: 9913128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 21:08:48.695137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:21.908748
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                             ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

                                    NO. 03-22-00155-CV

          Jonathan Thompson, P.E., and Atlas Design Services, PLLC, Appellants

                                              v.

 Thompson-Hamilton Engineering Services, LLC D/B/A Atlas Design Services and Sharon
                            Hamilton, P.E., Appellees

                  FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY
             NO. 20-2211, THE HONORABLE SHERRI TIBBE, JUDGE PRESIDING

                           M E M O RAN D U M O PI N I O N

               We withdraw our previous opinion and judgment issued on October 12, 2023, and

substitute the following opinion and judgment in their place. We deny the motion for rehearing

filed by appellants.

               Appellants Jonathan Thompson, P.E., and Atlas Design Services, PLLC

(collectively, Thompson) appeal from the trial court’s denial of Thompson’s motion to compel

arbitration. In the underlying suit, appellees Thompson-Hamilton Engineering Services, LLC

d/b/a Atlas Design Services (Thompson-Hamilton) and Sharon Hamilton, P.E. (collectively,

Hamilton) sued Thompson for damages and injunctive relief, asserting that Thompson unlawfully

diverted assets from Thompson-Hamilton, a business co-owned by Jonathan Thompson and

Sharon Hamilton. After Hamilton filed a motion for contempt, seeking to enforce the parties’
agreed temporary injunction, Thompson moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in an

unsigned mediated settlement agreement. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the denial

of the motion to compel arbitration.

                                        BACKGROUND

               Jonathan Thompson and Sharon Hamilton have co-owned Thompson-Hamilton

Engineering Services, LLC d/b/a Atlas Design Services since 2007. Hamilton alleges in the live

petition in the underlying suit that Jonathan Thompson started Atlas Design Services, PLLC, a

competing business, for his own pecuniary gain. Hamilton further alleges that Jonathan shifted

existing and prospective business from Thompson-Hamilton to his competing business by hiding

the true identity of the competing business from Thompson-Hamilton’s existing and prospective

customers through his unlawful use of Thompson-Hamilton’s assumed name, trade dress, and

reputation in the local engineering community. In addition, Hamilton alleges that Thompson

unlawfully appropriated Thompson-Hamilton’s confidential information.

               Hamilton sued Thompson in October 2020, seeking damages and declaratory and

injunctive relief, and asserting claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of fiduciary duty,

(3) misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, (4) tortious interference with

existing and prospective contracts, (5) unfair competition, (6) deceptive advertising and use of

assumed name, (7) misappropriation of brand and trade-dress infringement and (8) fraud. In

November 2020, the trial court signed an agreed temporary injunction.

               After the parties attended mediation in February 2021, the mediator circulated a

draft mediated settlement agreement (Agreement) to the parties. That Agreement contained a

provision establishing that “[a]ny further disputes between the parties will be submitted to binding

                                                 2
arbitration before [the mediator].” The Agreement was never signed by the parties or filed with

the trial court.

                   Neither party’s counsel signed the Agreement. When the mediator circulated the

agreement by email to the parties’ attorneys, requesting that they “[s]ee attached and please

confirm by reply to all,” Hamilton’s former counsel replied “[a]greed to substance and form” in a

one-line email. Nothing in the record indicates that Thompson’s counsel ever replied.

                   The next month, Hamilton filed an amended petition seeking, in addition to the

other claims, a declaration that the parties’ Agreement “is void, unenforceable, and therefore

rescinded as a result of Defendant [Jonathan] Thompson fraudulently inducing [Hamilton] to enter

into the [Agreement] with no intent of complying by its terms—either in whole or in part.”

Hamilton alleged that Jonathan Thompson “made false representations of material fact and created

the false and misleading impression that he was acting in good faith in order to end the lawsuit”

and that the evidence would show that Jonathan “surreptitiously plotted his ruse with the specific

intent of harming [Hamilton] for [Thompson’s] own financial benefit.”

                   In January 2022, Hamilton filed a motion for contempt, seeking to enforce the

agreed temporary injunction, arguing that the Agreement never became effective and the agreed

temporary injunction remained in effect. 1      In February 2022, Thompson moved to compel

arbitration under the Texas Arbitration Act, asserting that the Agreement was valid and enforceable

and required the trial court to send the matter to arbitration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

        1
           Hamilton retained new counsel in summer 2021. Hamilton’s new counsel sent a ten-page
letter to Thompson’s counsel on October 15, 2021, seeking to “finalize the settlement of this case
prior to end of the calendar year” and addressing various issues to be resolved by the parties
surrounding settlement to accomplish that goal. According to the letter, each party at that point
was taking the position that the other party had first breached terms of the Agreement. However,
no party has asserted to the trial court that the other party has breached the Agreement.
                                                  3
§§ 171.021-.026, .096(d). After conducting a hearing on both motions, without making findings

of fact or conclusions of law, the trial court granted Hamilton’s motion for contempt and denied

Thompson’s motion to compel arbitration. 2           This interlocutory appeal followed.     See id.

§ 171.098(a)(1).

                                             ANALYSIS

               In two issues, Thompson challenges the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel

arbitration.3 First, Thompson asserts that the trial court erred by denying the motion because a

valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed. Second, Thompson contends that the trial

court erred by denying the motion because Hamilton failed to establish the asserted defense of

waiver of arbitration. We turn first to the issue of whether an enforceable agreement to arbitrate

existed because it is potentially dispositive.

Standard of Review

               “Arbitration is a creature of contract between consenting parties.” Jody James

Farms, JV v. Altman Grp., Inc., 547 S.W.3d 624, 629 (Tex. 2018). “[A] party seeking to compel

arbitration must establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the existence of a

       2
           According to Hamilton’s brief, Sharon Hamilton appeared at the hearing and testified as
a live witness; Jonathan Thompson did not. Thompson failed to make arrangements to pay for the
reporter’s record and to ensure the proper filing of the reporter’s record. However, because we
resolve this interlocutory appeal as a matter of law, and not based on any implied fact finding by
the trial court, we need not determine the effect of Thompson’s failure to provide a record of what
appears to be an evidentiary hearing.
       3
          In a third issue, Thompson asserts that if we determine that a valid agreement to arbitrate
exists between the parties, we should grant mandamus relief from the trial court’s order holding
Thompson in contempt for violations of the agreed temporary injunction. Because we conclude
that no valid agreement to arbitrate exists, we overrule this issue.
                                                 4
dispute within the scope of the agreement.” Rachal v. Reitz, 403 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. 2013).

“Whether parties have agreed to arbitrate is a gateway matter ordinarily committed to the trial

court and controlled by state law governing ‘the validity, revocability, and enforceability of

contracts generally.’” Jody James Farms, 547 S.W.3d at 631 (quoting Arthur Andersen LLP

v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 631 (2009)).

               Thompson moved to compel arbitration under the Texas Arbitration Act, which

establishes that a “written agreement to arbitrate” is enforceable if the agreement is to arbitrate

either an existing controversy or one that “arises between the parties after the date of the

agreement.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.001(a). We review a trial court’s denial of a

motion to compel arbitration for abuse of discretion, deferring to the trial court’s factual

determinations if supported by the evidence, and reviewing the court’s legal determinations

de novo. Dargahi v. Handa, No. 03-17-00386-CV, 2017 WL 5247517, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin

Nov. 8, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); SEB, Inc. v. Campbell, No. 03–10–00375–CV, 2011 WL 749292,

at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 2, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting courts apply same standard of

review whether appeal is brought under Texas Arbitration Act or Federal Arbitration Act).

               When one party resists arbitration, the trial court must determine whether a valid

agreement to arbitrate exists, which is a question of law subject to de novo review. Baby Dolls

Topless Saloons, Inc. v. Sotero, 642 S.W.3d 583, 585-86 (Tex. 2022) (per curiam) (citing J.M.

Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Tex. 2003)); see also Oak Crest Manor Nursing

Home, LLC v. Barba, No. 03-16-00514-CV, 2016 WL 7046844, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 1,

2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Whether the parties agreed to be bound to an arbitration agreement is

a contract-formation question that we review de novo, deferring to the trial court’s findings of

historical fact as between the parties so long as those determinations are supported by evidence.”).

                                                 5
To challenge an arbitration clause, a party can contest (1) the validity of the contract as a whole,

(2) the validity of the arbitration provision specifically, and (3) whether an agreement exists at all.

RSL Funding, LLC v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 124 (Tex. 2018) (citing In re Morgan Stanley &

Co., 293 S.W.3d 182, 187 (Tex. 2009)). Challenges of the third type—that the contract never came

into existence—are decided by the court. RSL Funding, 569 S.W.3d at 124; see also Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.021(b) (“If a party opposing an application [to arbitrate under an

agreement to arbitrate] denies the existence of the agreement, the court shall summarily determine

that issue.”). In opposition to the motion to compel arbitration, Hamilton raised this third type

of challenge.

Did the parties have a valid and enforceable agreement?

                Thompson argues that the Agreement and the arbitration provision contained within

it are valid and enforceable because Hamilton’s signature, as a matter of law, was not a condition

precedent to being bound by the terms of the Agreement. Thompson asserts that the Agreement’s

plain text did not require a signature as a condition precedent. Thompson further contends that the

evidence before the trial court of the parties’ conduct conclusively demonstrates that the parties

had agreed to the terms of the Agreement, even though they did not sign the document. In

response, Hamilton asserts that the Agreement is unenforceable because (1) it does not satisfy Rule

11’s minimum requirements for settlement agreements, (2) the Agreement contemplates that the

parties’ signatures are required to take effect, and (3) Thompson’s conduct demonstrates lack of

intent to be bound by the unsigned Agreement.

                We interpret arbitration agreements under traditional contract principles. J.M.

Davidson, Inc., 128 S.W.3d at 228. To prove the existence of a valid contract, a party “must

                                                  6
establish that (1) an offer was made; (2) the other party accepted in strict compliance with the

terms of the offer; (3) the parties had a meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the contract

(mutual assent); (4) each party consented to those terms; and (5) the parties executed and delivered

the contract with the intent that it be mutual and binding.” USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca,

545 S.W.3d 479, 502 n.21 (Tex. 2018). “Contracts require mutual assent to be enforceable.

Evidence of mutual assent in written contracts generally consists of signatures of the parties and

delivery with the intent to bind.” Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tex. 2007)

(per curiam) (citations omitted); cf. Phillips v. Carlton Energy Group, LLC, 475 S.W.3d 265, 277

(Tex. 2015) (explaining that “while signature and delivery are often evidence of the mutual assent

required for a contract, they are not essential . . . ‘unless the parties explicitly require signatures as

a condition of mutual assent’” (footnote omitted)).

                The central question here is whether the parties executed and delivered the contract

with the intent that it be mutual and binding. In response to Thompson’s motion to compel

arbitration, Hamilton asserted that the Agreement never became effective because it was never

signed by either party. Hamilton further alleged that the parties were still negotiating significant

details about the final settlement terms, and thus, the Agreement “was for all intents and purposes,

an ‘agreement to agree’” that is unenforceable because neither party ever signed it or filed it or the

post-mediation email with the trial court as a Rule 11 agreement. Thompson contends on appeal

that the absence of the parties’ signatures on the Agreement is not dispositive of the question of

whether they intended to be bound, relying on cases holding that “[a] party may accept a contract,

and indicate its intent to be bound to the terms by acts and conduct in accordance with the terms.”

E.g., Thomas J. Sibley, P.C. v. Brentwood Inv. Dev. Co., L.P., 356 S.W.3d 659, 663 (Tex. App.—El

Paso 2011, pet. denied) (citing Augusta Dev. Co. v. Fish Oil Well Servicing Co., 761 S.W.2d 538,

                                                    7
544 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1988, no writ) (“However, in order to constitute a

contract in writing, a writing does not necessarily have to be signed by both parties, so long as the

party not signing accepts the contract by his acts, conduct or acquiescence.”)). In addition,

Thompson relies on Section 171.001 of the Texas Arbitration Act, which requires only that an

agreement to arbitrate be in writing but does not require the agreement to be signed to be

enforceable, except in limited circumstances not present here. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§ 171.001(a); see also id. § 171.002 (requiring signatures on arbitration agreements for acquisition

contracts for property or services for less than $50,000 and agreements to arbitrate personal-injury

claims).

               However, as Thompson acknowledges, “when the terms of the contract make it

clear that a signature is required, a party’s failure to sign the agreement will render the agreement

unenforceable.” St. David’s Healthcare P’ship, LP v. Fuller, 627 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2021, pet. dism’d) (quoting Wright v. Hernandez, 469 S.W.3d 744, 758 (Tex. App.—El

Paso 2015, no pet.) (citing e.g., Simmons & Simmons Constr. Co. v. Rea, 286 S.W.2d 415, 418-19

(Tex. 1955) (concluding evidence did not support jury’s verdict enforcing contract when one party

had not signed contract, contract contained signature block, contract itself stated that parties’

signatures had to be notarized, and contract was given to one party with directions to sign it and

return to other party for signing))). Thompson argues that the plain language of the Agreement

does not expressly require a signature because it acted only as memorialization of the agreement

that the parties reached at the mediation and “[n]o portion of the text of the [Agreement] explicitly

requires a signature for the agreement to be valid.” We disagree.

               When we construe a written contract, our primary concern “is to ascertain the true

intentions of the parties as expressed in the instrument.” Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393

                                                 8
(Tex. 1983). To achieve this objective, we “examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to

harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered

meaningless.” Id. Objective manifestations of the parties’ intent control, and “[w]e therefore

‘presume parties intend what the words of their contract say.’” URI, Inc. v. Kleberg County,

543 S.W.3d 755, 764 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s

London, 327 S.W.3d 118, 127 (Tex. 2010)).

               Several parts of the Agreement express an intent that the parties’ signatures are

required for it to become effective. The introductory paragraphs state as follows:

       Today the undersigned mediated with Patrick Keel. After consulting with their
       attorneys, the parties and their attorneys now sign this document to memorialize
       the terms of their agreement under § 154.071 of the Texas Civil Practice &
       Remedies Code and Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

       Although the mediator assisted in drafting this agreement, the parties and their
       attorneys thoroughly reviewed the document and made or had the opportunity to
       make any changes to it that the parties desired. The parties sign this agreement of
       their own free will and without duress, relying on their own understanding of the
       agreement and the advice of their attorneys.

(Emphases added). The document concludes “Signed on February 12, 2021,” followed by

signature blocks for Thompson and Hamilton to sign in both their individual and representative

capacities, as well as signature lines for each of their attorneys to approve the Agreement as

to form.

               By referring to Section 154.071 and Rule 11, both of which require the signing of

a written agreement to establish an enforceable settlement agreement, the Agreement by its

unambiguous terms requires the parties’ signatures to make it enforceable. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code § 154.071(a) (“If the parties reach a settlement and execute a written agreement

                                                9
disposing of the dispute, the agreement is enforceable in the same manner as any other written

contract.”); Tex. R. Civ. P. 11 (“Unless otherwise provided in these rules, no agreement between

attorneys or parties touching any suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and

filed with the papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of

record.”). The Texas Supreme Court has held that “compliance with Rule 11 is a general

prerequisite for any judgment enforcing an agreement touching a pending suit.” Kennedy v. Hyde,

682 S.W.2d 525, 529 (Tex. 1984) (concluding that oral settlement agreement was unenforceable

because it did not comply with Rule 11). In addition, the Agreement states in two separate places

that the parties are signing “to memorialize the terms of their agreement” and based on their

agreement to those terms after reviewing and having the opportunity to make changes. Finally,

the signature blocks require them to sign individually and in their representative capacities and

their attorneys to sign to indicate their approval of the form. Together, these references to the

parties’ signatures are far more than the mere signature block that our sister court concluded was

insufficient standing alone to establish that a party’s signature is a condition precedent to the

enforceability of the parties’ agreement. See Wright, 469 S.W.3d at 760 (citing Tricon Energy Ltd.

v. Vinmar Int’l, Ltd., 718 F.3d 448, 454-55 (5th Cir. 2013)). We conclude that the Agreement

unambiguously requires the parties’ signatures to become effective, and the undisputed evidence

establishes that the Agreement was not signed by the parties. Therefore, we hold that it is

not enforceable.

               Because of this unambiguous language, we are not persuaded by Thompson’s

argument that Hamilton’s former counsel’s email stating that he agreed to the substance and form

of the Agreement is conduct indicative of Hamilton’s intent to be bound by the Agreement’s terms,

including the arbitration provision. We note that the mediator’s email requested that both

                                                10
Hamilton’s counsel and Thompson’s counsel confirm that the attached agreement was the

agreement reached at the mediation. Nothing in the record demonstrates that Thompson’s counsel

responded or that either Hamilton or Thompson ever signed the Agreement. The cases relied upon

by Thompson involved contracts where at least one party signed the agreement and the courts

determined that there was no evidence of an intent to require both parties’ signatures as a condition

precedent to the contract’s becoming effective. See, e.g., ABB Kraftwerke Aktiengesellschaft

v. Brownsville Barge & Crane, Inc., 115 S.W.3d 287, 292 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg

2003, pet. denied). Because we have determined that the Agreement unambiguously required the

parties’ signatures to become enforceable, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion

by denying the motion to compel arbitration.4

       4
           Because we conclude that the Agreement and the arbitration provision contained within
it are not enforceable absent the necessary signatures, we need not address Thompson’s argument
that the parties’ conduct after the mediation established their assent to be bound by the Agreement.
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. However, on rehearing, Thompson urges that we should enforce what
this Court has described as “the Kennedy court’s equitable-exception dictum.” Ebner v. First State
Bank of Smithville, 27 S.W.3d 287, 299 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied) (citing Kennedy v.
Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 525, 529 (Tex. 1984) (holding that “compliance with Rule 11 is a general
prerequisite for any judgment enforcing an agreement touching a pending suit” but also noting that
“a nonconforming agreement may be enforced for . . . equitable reasons [of fraud or mistake]”).
Thompson does not argue that the Agreement should be enforced on grounds of fraud or mistake—
indeed, Thompson does not argue that any portion of the Agreement should be enforced other than
the arbitration provision. Instead, Thompson argues that Hamilton “took advantage of the
[Agreement] by enforcing its provisions to her benefit” and that she should not be able to denounce
the Agreement because she does not dispute the existence of the Agreement or its terms. See
Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 688-89 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (noting
exception to Rule 11’s writing requirement when existence of agreement and its terms are not
disputed); Dehnert v. Dehnert, 705 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1986, no writ)
(holding husband could not take advantage of unsigned settlement agreement in divorce case by
receiving some property under agreement and then later denouncing agreement).
        The record belies Thompson’s contentions that Hamilton “enforced” the provisions of the
Agreement to her benefit and that she does not dispute the Agreement’s existence or terms.
Thompson bases his contentions on assertions in Hamilton’s counsel’s letter of Hamilton’s claims
about the division of funds and projects. However, the letter itself demonstrates that some terms
of the Agreement were in dispute and that Hamilton sought “to finalize the settlement.” And as
                                                 11
                                          CONCLUSION

               Having concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion

to compel arbitration, we affirm the interlocutory order.

                                               __________________________________________
                                               Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: December 21, 2023

previously noted, Hamilton never attempted to enforce the Agreement in the trial court. On this
record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply the equitable
exception to Rule 11’s requirements.
         Similarly, because we have held that the Agreement and the arbitration provision contained
within it are not enforceable absent the necessary signatures, we do not reach Thompson’s other
issue presented in which he contends the trial court erred by denying the motion to compel
arbitration because Hamilton had failed to establish the defense of waiver. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
                                                  12