law-mediation | appellate mediation | arbitration case law | definiteness of contractual terms for enforcement
purposes | meeting of the minds requirement as element of contract formation | Rule 11 agreements | settlement
agreements | agreement to arbitrate |
HOUSTON CASE LAW ON MEDIATION (LEGAL DISPUTES / CASELAW)
The Levin Law Group, PC v. Sigmon (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 21, 2010)(Sullivan)
(no breach of agreement to mediate on specific terms that were not agreed to, silence not assent, no meeting of
the minds on cancellation fee, unforceable contract not formed)
Appellant, the Levin Law Group, P.C. (“LLG”) filed suit against attorney Ernesto de Andre Sigmon for breach of an agreement to
mediate an underlying civil lawsuit. The trial court granted Sigmon’s motion for summary judgment after Sigmon asserted, inter alia,
(a) he did not accept the terms of the agreement, (b) he did not reschedule or cancel the mediation, and (c) the statute of frauds
operated to bar the alleged oral contract. We affirm the judgment....
Under these circumstances, we conclude that Sigmon conclusively established that he did not accept the terms of the mediation
specified in the letters faxed by LLG, the mediation rules form, or the mediation agreement form—an essential element of LLG’s
breach of contract claim. Cf. IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Tex., Inc., 143 S.W.3d at 798; see Advantage Physical Therapy,
Inc., 165 S.W.3d at 25–26. Because LLG presented no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding this issue, the
trial court properly granted summary judgment to Sigmon.
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Kent Sullivan
Before
14-08-01165-CV The Levin Law Group, P.C. v. Ernesto De Andre Sigmon
Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Roberta Anne Lloyd
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE