law-arbitration-legal-capacity | Texas arbitration caselaw |
In re Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. No. 07-0665 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Medina) (arbitration vs. litigation: legal capacity
of party to arbitration agreement, who decides the issue?)
IN RE MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC., SUCCESSOR TO MORGAN STANLEY DW, INC.; from Dallas County;
5th district (05-07-00590-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-17-07 Opinion by the Dallas CoA)
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court [pdf], in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion.
(Justice O'Neill not sitting)
Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 07-0665 IN RE MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC., SUCCESSOR TO MORGAN
STANLEY DW INC.
In this original mandamus proceeding, the relator seeks to compel arbitration in accordance with its agreement
in the underlying case. The other putative party to the agreement resists arbitration on the ground that she
lacked the mental capacity to assent to the contract. The question here is whether the court or the arbitrator
should decide this issue of capacity. The trial court concluded that it was the proper forum. We agree and,
accordingly, deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
We agree that Prima Paint reserves to the court issues like the one here, that the signor lacked the mental
capacity to assent. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to yield the question to
the arbitrator. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.