Perry Golf Course Development, LLC v. Columbia Residential, LLC , 337 Ga. App. 525 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              FIRST DIVISION
    DOYLE, C. J.,
    ANDREWS, P. J., and RAY, J.
    NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
    physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
    days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
    http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
    June 9, 2016
    In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
    A16A0404. PERRY GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. DO-015
    COLUMBIA RESIDENTIAL, LLC.
    DOYLE, Chief Judge.
    In a business dispute, plaintiff Perry Golf Course Development, LLC (“Perry
    Golf”), appeals from the confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of defendant
    Columbia Residential, LLC (“Columbia”). Perry Golf contends that the superior court
    erred by compelling arbitration and confirming the award because (1) the arbitration
    provision enforced by the trial court was part of an agreement already deemed
    unenforceable as to another party, and (2) the parties had abandoned the agreement
    that contained the arbitration provision. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
    “Because the question of whether a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement
    exists represents a question of law, we review de novo a trial court’s order granting
    or denying a motion to compel arbitration.”1
    The relevant factual history is undisputed. In the mid 1990’s, the Atlanta
    Housing Authority (“AHA”) sought to redevelop the Perry Homes public housing
    development. Perry Golf, Columbia, and Brock Built, LLC, formed an entity, Perry
    Homes Redevelopment, LLC (“PHR”), to bid on the redevelopment project, and PHR
    ultimately was awarded the contract by the AHA. In 2001, PHR executed a
    revitalization agreement with AHA that laid out a general plan for the redevelopment.
    In 2002, the three members of PHR executed an operating agreement that
    governed each party’s rights and obligations in furtherance of the redevelopment
    plan. The agreement outlined three main areas of obligations: development of a golf
    course by Perry Golf, development of multi-family housing by Columbia, and
    development of single-family housing by Brock Built. The agreement also contained
    1
    (Puctuation omitted.) AAA Restoration Co. v. Peek, 
    333 Ga. App. 152
     (775
    SE2d 152) (2015).
    2
    a provision for dispute resolution allowing an aggrieved party to demand binding
    arbitration. That provision provides as follows, in relevant part:
    If any Dispute (as defined below) arises between the parties in relation
    to this Agreement . . . any party . . . may demand binding arbitration
    [after giving notice]. As used herein, “Dispute” shall include any
    difference, disagreement[,] or failure to agree between the parties arising
    out of or in connection with this Agreement or any of the Project
    Documents including any question regarding the application, existence,
    validity, performance, withdrawal from or non-performance, or
    termination of this Agreement or any clause contained within this
    Agreement or any Project Document or any matter in any way connected
    with this Agreement or the rights, duties, or obligations of any party to
    this Agreement or any Project Document. Each Member hereby agrees
    that any unresolved Disputes shall be settled by means of arbitration . .
    . . The Members also agree that any award resulting from such
    Arbitration shall be final and binding upon them, with each Member
    agreeing to waive its right to contest the arbitration award in a court of
    law. . . .2
    After a dispute arose between Perry Golf and Brock Built, in May 2005, Perry
    Golf filed a demand for arbitration with Brock Built, which participated in the
    arbitration over its objection. The ensuing arbitration (“First Arbitration”) ultimately
    2
    (Emphasis supplied.)
    3
    resulted in a ruling from the arbitrator that the “arbitration agreement is binding and
    valid on the parties,” but the project-related obligations in the operating agreement
    nevertheless were unenforceable as between Perry Golf and Brock Built based on the
    agreement’s lack of mutuality between the two.
    This result was not challenged by any of the parties. Going forward, the parties
    agreed that their mutual authority with respect to PHR would be governed by the
    Georgia Limited Liability Company Act,3 even as they continued to perform the roles
    established by the original operating agreement to carry out the revitalization
    agreement between PHR and the AHA.
    As the housing portions of the project moved forward, progress on the golf
    course languished, and in 2006, PHR and the AHA amended the revitalization
    agreement to eliminate the golf course feature of the project.4 As a result, Perry Golf
    believed it had been unfairly cut out of the project and filed the instant suit against
    AHA, Brock Built, and Columbia. Enumerating various claims including breach of
    contract and breach of fiduciary duty, Perry Golf alleged that the two other members
    3
    OCGA § 14-11-100 et seq.
    4
    See Perry Golf Course Dev. v. Housing Auth., 
    294 Ga. App. 387
     (670 SE2d
    171) (2008).
    4
    of PHR wrongfully voted (by two to one majority vote) to remove the golf course
    from the plan, and that AHA and PHR wrongfully amended the revitalization
    agreement. AHA moved for a judgment on the pleadings, Columbia answered and
    moved to compel arbitration, Brock Built counterclaimed and brought third party
    claims, and the trial court dismissed all claims against all parties.5 That order was
    appealed to this Court, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal,
    allowing certain claims to proceed, including alleged breach of fiduciary duty by both
    Brock Built and Perry Golf.6
    On remittur, Columbia renewed its motion to compel arbitration of Perry Golf’s
    claims, and the trial court ordered the parties to binding arbitration. In 2015, the
    arbitrator entered an award favoring Columbia (“Second Arbitration”), and the trial
    court confirmed the award, giving rise to this appeal.
    1. Perry Golf contends that the trial court erred by compelling arbitration
    because the operating agreement containing the arbitration clause was deemed to be
    unenforceable in the First Arbitration. Based on the scope of that proceeding, which
    did not include Columbia, we disagree.
    5
    See 
    id.
    6
    See id. at 393 (6) (c), 394-395 (7) (a).
    5
    “Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to
    arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Therefore, the question
    of arbitrability, i.e., whether an agreement creates a duty for the parties to arbitrate
    the particular grievance, is undeniably an issue for judicial determination.”7 “And the
    validity of an arbitration agreement is generally governed by state law principles of
    contract formation.”8
    Here, the arbitration clause is found in the operating agreement, which was the
    subject of the First Arbitration between Perry Golf and Brock Built. Perry Golf argues
    that the operating agreement is unenforceable, relying on the fact that the First
    Arbitration resulted in a finding that the operating agreement was unenforceable due
    to the lack of mutuality between Perry Golf and Brock Built.
    As a threshold matter, we note that the First Arbitration did not include
    Columbia, the appellee in this case. Accordingly, to the extent that Perry Golf makes
    a collateral estoppel argument, the First Arbitration’s ruling does not bind Columbia
    7
    (Punctuation omitted.) Pickle v. Rayonier Forest Resources, L.P., 
    282 Ga. App. 295
    , 296 (638 SE2d 344) (2006).
    8
    (Punctuation omitted.) McKean v. GGNSC Atlanta, LLC, 
    329 Ga. App. 507
    ,
    509 (1) (765 SE2d 681) (2014).
    6
    here because it was not a party to the First Arbitration, and its obligations under the
    operating agreement were not the same as Brock Built’s.9 Therefore, the First
    Arbitration lacks the identity of issues and parties to be binding on Columbia now.10
    Next, with respect to the award itself, the arbitrator explicitly ruled that the
    arbitration clause encompassed the dispute at issue and was valid and binding, even
    though the arbitrator held that the operating agreement’s larger project obligations
    between Perry Golf and Brock built were unenforceable (not void) due to the lack of
    mutuality. Therefore, the result of the First Arbitration was not that the arbitration
    clause itself was unenforceable – it was actually the opposite – nor did the First
    Arbitration hold that the operating agreement was entirely void. The First Arbitration
    merely addressed the enforceability of the substantive provisions of the operating
    agreement as between Perry Golf and Brock Built, and no ruling was made as to the
    enforceability of obligations as to the parties to this appeal.
    9
    See Pike County v. Callaway-Ingram, 
    292 Ga. 828
    , 832 (2) (742 SE2d 471)
    (2013) (“The theory of collateral estoppel cannot apply because it addresses the
    re-litigation of an issue that has been adjudicated on the merits in another action
    involving the same parties or their privies.”). We need not decide whether the
    arbitration was an adjudication on the merits for purposes of collateral estoppel.
    10
    See 
    id.
    7
    Finally, pretermitting the enforceability of the substantive obligations between
    Perry Golf and Columbia, we note that the operating agreement contained the
    following severability clause: “If any term or provision of this Agreement is held
    illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability will
    not affect the legality, validity or enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement.”
    “[W]here the agreement is founded on a legal consideration containing a promise to
    do several things or to refrain from doing several things, and only some of the
    promises are illegal, the promises which are not illegal will be held to be valid.”11
    Giving effect to the unambiguous severability clause, we conclude the mutual
    promises among all parties to forego litigation in court (and avoid the associated
    expense and delay) are not dependent on the enforceability of other alleged promises
    in the operating agreement.12 Accordingly, the First Arbitration award does not
    support Perry Golf’s argument that the arbitration clause is unenforceable here.
    11
    (Punctuation omitted.) Harris v. SAL Financial Svcs., 
    270 Ga. App. 230
    , 232
    (606 SE2d 293) (2004).
    12
    Cf. ISS Intl. Svc. System v. Widmer, 
    264 Ga. App. 55
    , 61 (3) (589 SE2d 820)
    (2003) (“[W]here the agreement is founded on a legal consideration containing a
    promise to do several things or to refrain from doing several things, and only some
    of the promises are illegal, the promises which are not illegal will be held to be
    valid.”).
    8
    2. Perry Golf next argues that the arbitration clause is unenforceable because
    the parties abandoned the operating agreement when they agreed to conduct
    themselves according to the Georgia Limited Liability Company Act. This argument
    is belied by the subsequent conduct of the parties and the broad scope of the
    arbitration clause.
    It is undisputed that the parties to the agreement endeavored to continue their
    roles to honor the overall development process contemplated by the revitalization
    agreement between PHR and the AHA, which agreement was untouched by the First
    Arbitration. The arbitration clause applies to disputes in “any matter in any way
    connected with this Agreement or the rights, duties[,] or obligations of any party to
    this Agreement or any Project Document.” The Project Documents include the
    operating agreement, the revitalization agreement executed between AHA and PHR,
    and “each other agreement and instrument contemplated [in the operating agreement]
    or entered into by” PHR in furtherance of the development project. The basis of the
    dispute was the amendment of the revitalization agreement between AHA and PHR
    by removing the golf course from the planned project. Thus, is clear that the subject
    matter of the dispute falls squarely within that contemplated by the arbitration clause.
    9
    Further, with respect to disputes arising after termination of the contract, the
    arbitration clause contains no limitation on the time frame of disputes that are subject
    to arbitration. Under OCGA § 9-9-3, “[a] written agreement to submit any existing
    controversy to arbitration or a provision in a written contract to submit any
    controversy thereafter arising to arbitration is enforceable . . . .”13 The arbitration
    clause applies to disputes in “any matter in any way connected to” the project
    documents, including the revitalization agreement. This reflects an intent by the
    parties to arbitrate project issues broadly. “[I]n the absence of some contrary
    indication, there are strong reasons to conclude that the parties did not intend their
    arbitration duties to terminate automatically with the contract.”14 In interpreting
    similarly broad language, this Court has held that disputes arising from conduct after
    the termination of a contract can still be subject to an arbitration clause in the
    terminated contract. This was based on the fact that because the alleged wrongful
    conduct “touched” the contract, the contract’s broadly worded arbitration clause was
    13
    (Emphasis supplied.)
    14
    Nolde Bros. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, 
    430 U.S. 243
    , 253
    (3) (97 SCt 1067, 51 LE2d 300) (1977). See also Pickle, 282 Ga. App. at 297 (2) (b).
    10
    given effect even after termination of the contract.15 Here, the underlying dispute
    arose from the amendment of the revitalization plan (a “Project Document” subject
    to the arbitration clause) and conduct that occurred both before and after the alleged
    termination of the operating agreement. The application of the broadly-worded
    arbitration clause to the subject matter of the operating agreement is consistent with
    the parties’ continued pursuit of the project.16 Under these circumstances, the trial
    court did not err by compelling arbitration and confirming the arbitrator’s award.
    Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P. J. and Ray, J., concur.
    15
    See Davidson v. A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 
    324 Ga. App. 172
    , 174 (1) (b)
    (i) (748 SE2d 300) (2013), quoting Brown v. Coleman Co., 220 F3d 1180, 1184 (III)
    (10th Cir. 2000). See also Penso Holdings, Inc. v. Cleveland, 
    324 Ga. App. 259
    , 263
    (749 SE2d 821) (2013) (“A provision in a written contract to submit any controversy
    thereafter arising to arbitration is enforceable without regard to the justiciable
    character of the controversy and confers jurisdiction on the courts of the state to
    enforce it and to enter judgment on an award. As with any other contract, the parties’
    intentions control.”) (footnote and punctuation omitted) (physical precedent only).
    16
    Cf. Pickle, 282 Ga. App. at 297-298 (2) (b).
    11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A16A0404

Citation Numbers: 337 Ga. App. 525, 786 S.E.2d 565, 2016 WL 3208705, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 332

Judges: Doyle, Andrews, Ray

Filed Date: 6/9/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/8/2024