Court Opinion

ID: 9883785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:19:11.925167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:30.859320
License: Public Domain

FORSBERG, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. Minn.Stat. § 572.08 (1986) provides as follows:
A written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration or a provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
Respondent has asserted as a defense a claim of fraud in the inducement which, if proven, would clearly rescind and/or revoke the contract. Therefore, the claim would not be subject to arbitration.
The supreme court in Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334, 197 N.W.2d 448 (1972) and subsequent cases (such as Thayer v. American Financial Advisers, 322 N.W.2d 599 (Minn.1982)) has been reluctant to allow fraud in the inducement to be subject to arbitration for very good reasons. First of all, it seems so clearly wrong to allow a fraudulently obtained contract to dictate the vehicle by which that very issue of fraud is determined. Moreover, the court stated in At-eas:
When the making of the agreement itself is put in issue, as is the result of a claim of fraud in the inducement, that issue is more properly determined by those trained in the law.
Id. 292 Minn. at 350, 197 N.W.2d at 457. Therefore, the supreme court has consistently stated that a clear intent must be shown to arbitrate fraud. It seems to this writer that to satisfy that requirement, the issue of fraud must be mentioned in the arbitration agreement as one of the issues to be arbitrated, otherwise it should be tried by the court.