Simmons Housing, Inc. v. Coleman Britt Shelton ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
    NO. 2009-CA-00568-SCT
    SIMMONS HOUSING, INC. AND SOUTHERN
    ENERGY HOMES, INC.
    v.
    COLEMAN BRITT SHELTON AND JOSHUA
    MASON SHELTON, BY AND THROUGH THEIR
    MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, KIMBERLY
    SHELTON
    DATE OF JUDGMENT:                       03/16/2009
    TRIAL JUDGE:                            HON. LAMAR PICKARD
    COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:              COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:               MUNCELLE MITCHELL
    JOE S. DEATON, III
    ALAN GOODMAN
    BARBARA MEEKS
    JAMES L. QUINN
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:                JEFFREY A. VARAS
    DONNA HODGES
    NATURE OF THE CASE:                     CIVIL - CONTRACT
    DISPOSITION:                            AFFIRMED AND REMANDED - 06/17/2010
    MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
    MANDATE ISSUED:
    BEFORE WALLER, C.J., RANDOLPH AND CHANDLER, JJ.
    WALLER, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
    ¶1.   Roy and Kimberly Shelton, individually and as next friends of their two minor
    children, filed suit against Simmons Housing, Inc., and Southern Energy Homes, Inc., in
    which they alleged several claims concerning an allegedly defective mobile home. The
    circuit court compelled Roy’s and Kimberly’s claims to arbitration based on two agreements
    they had signed in purchasing the mobile home. The circuit court refused, however, to
    compel the minor, nonsignatory children’s claims to arbitration. Finding no error, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2.    In December 1998, Roy and Kimberly Shelton purchased a mobile home from
    Simmons Housing, Inc., in Brookhaven, Mississippi. Roy, Kimberly, and Jackey Simmons,
    President of Simmons Housing, Inc., executed a retail-installment contract that included an
    arbitration provision.1 These same parties also entered a separate “Binding Arbitration
    Agreement.” 2
    1
    The arbitration provision in paragraph 14 stated, in pertinent part, that:
    All disputes or controversies arising from or relating to this Contract or the
    parties thereto shall be resolved by binding arbitration by one arbitrator
    selected by Assignee with consent of Buyer(s). This agreement is made
    pursuant to a transaction in interstate commerce and shall be governed by the
    Federal Arbitration Act at 9 U.S.C. Section 1. Judgment upon the award
    rendered may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The parties agree
    and understand that they choose arbitration instead of litigation to resolve
    disputes. The parties understand that they have a right to litigate disputes in
    court, but that they prefer to resolve their disputes through arbitration, except
    as provided herein. THE PARTIES VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY
    WAIVE ANY RIGHT THEY HAVE TO A JURY TRIAL EITHER
    PURSUANT TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CLAUSE OR PURSUANT
    TO A COURT ACTION BY ASSIGNEE (AS PROVIDED HEREIN). The
    parties agree and understand that all disputes arising under case law, statutory
    law and all other laws including, but not limited to, all contract, tort and
    property disputes will be subject to binding arbitration in accord with this
    Contract. . . .
    2
    The Binding Arbitration Agreement stated, in pertinent part, that:
    All disputes not barred by applicable statues of limitations or otherwise barred
    by law, resulting from or arising out of the design, manufacture, warranty or
    2
    ¶3.    On November 22, 2005, Roy and Kimberly together with their two children, Coleman
    Britt Shelton and Joshua Mason Shelton, (collectively “the Sheltons”) filed suit against
    several entities and individuals, including Simmons Housing, Inc., and Southern Energy
    Homes, Inc., the manufacturer of the mobile home.3 The Sheltons asserted numerous claims
    including breach of contract, breach of warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code,
    strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss
    Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (2000). They primarily alleged that the mobile home
    was unfit for habitation due to mold and mildew.
    ¶4.    The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of Mississippi based on the Sheltons’ federal-law claim under the Magnuson-Moss
    repair of the manufactured home, (including but not limited to: the terms of
    the warranty, the terms of this arbitration agreement and all clauses herein
    contained, their breadth and scope, and any term of any agreement
    contemporaneously entered into by the parties concerning any goods or
    services manufactured or provided by Southern Energy Homes, Inc.; the
    condition of the manufactured home; the conformity of the manufactured
    home to federal building standards; the representations, promises,
    undertakings, warranties or covenants made by Southern Energy Homes, Inc.,
    (if any); or otherwise dealing with the manufactured home); will be submitted
    to BINDING ARBITRATION, pursuant to the provisions of 9 U.S.C. section
    1, et. seq. . . . . Any party to this agreement who fails or refuses to arbitrate in
    accordance with the terms of this pre-dispute binding arbitration agreement
    shall, in addition to any other relief awarded through arbitration, be taxed by
    the arbitrator or arbitrators with all of the costs, including reasonable attorneys
    fees, of the other party who has to resort to judicial or other means of
    compelling arbitration in accordance with the terms herein contained. THIS
    ARBITRATION SHALL BE IN LIEU OF ANY CIVIL LITIGATION IN
    ANY COURT, AND IN LIEU OF ANY TRIAL BY JURY.
    3
    The other defendants not made parties to this appeal are Green Tree Financial
    Servicing Corp., American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida, Assurant Solutions, and twenty
    John Does.
    3
    Warranty Act. But after the Sheltons dismissed their Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim,
    the federal district court remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Copiah County.
    ¶5.    On remand, Simmons Housing, Inc., and Southern Energy Homes, Inc., filed motions
    to compel arbitration. The circuit court granted Simmons Housing, Inc.’s motion to enforce
    arbitration. In response, the Sheltons filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that their
    minor children’s claims should not be subject to arbitration because the minor children’s
    claims were separate, distinct, and grounded in tort law. Southern Energy Homes, Inc., also
    moved the circuit court to provide specifically that the Sheltons’ claims against it were
    subject to binding arbitration as well.
    ¶6.    On May 17, 2009, the circuit court granted the Sheltons’ motion for reconsideration,
    and modified and reversed its earlier ruling in part. The circuit court ruled that Roy’s and
    Kimberly’s claims must be submitted to binding arbitration. Conversely, it determined that
    the Shelton children’s claims were not subject to arbitration. The circuit court found that the
    Shelton children were not third-party beneficiaries of the agreements and were not bound to
    arbitration by any rule of agency or estoppel. It thus denied Simmons Housing, Inc.’s and
    Southern Energy Homes, Inc.’s motions to compel arbitration as to the Shelton children’s
    claims.
    ¶7.    Simmons Housing, Inc., and Southern Energy Homes, Inc., now appeal to this Court,
    asserting that the Shelton children are bound to arbitration as third-party beneficiaries or
    based on principles of equitable estoppel.
    DISCUSSION
    4
    Whether the Shelton children are bound to the terms of arbitration
    agreements that their parents signed, but they did not.
    ¶8.    This Court reviews de novo the grant or denial of a motion to compel arbitration.
    Qualcomm v. American Wireless Group, 
    980 So. 2d 261
    , 268 (Miss. 2007) (quoting East
    Ford, Inc. v. Taylor, 
    826 So. 2d 709
    , 713 (Miss. 2002)).
    ¶9.    A strong federal policy favoring arbitration is well-established. E.g., Adams v.
    Greenpoint Credit, LLC, 
    943 So. 2d 703
    , 708 (Miss. 2006) (citations omitted). Nonetheless,
    a party generally is not required to arbitrate disputes unless that party previously has agreed
    to do so. 
    Qualcomm, 980 So. 2d at 269
    (quoting Adams at 708). Yet there are well-
    recognized exceptions to this rule. A nonsignatory may be bound to an arbitration agreement
    under ordinary principles of contract and agency. Terminix Int’l, Inc. v. Rice, 
    904 So. 2d 1051
    , 1058 (Miss. 2004) (quoting Washington Mut. Fin. Group, LLC v. Bailey, 
    364 F.3d 260
    , 267 (5th Cir. 2004)). Accordingly, this Court has stated that “a signatory may enforce
    an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory if the non-signatory is a third-party
    beneficiary or if the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies.” 
    Qualcomm, 980 So. 2d at 269
    (citing 
    Adams, 943 So. 2d at 708
    ).
    Third-Party Beneficiary
    ¶10.   Third-party-beneficiary status arises from the terms of the contract.           Burns v.
    Washington Savings, 
    251 Miss. 789
    , 796, 
    171 So. 2d 322
    , 325 (1965) (citing 17A C.J.S.
    Contracts § 519(4) (1963)). A person or entity may be deemed a third-party beneficiary if:
    (1) the contract between the original parties was entered for that person’s or entity’s benefit,
    or the original parties at least contemplated such benefit as a direct result of performance; (2)
    5
    the promisee owed a legal obligation or duty to that person or entity; and (3) the legal
    obligation or duty connects that person or entity with the contract. 
    Burns, 171 So. 2d at 325
    (citing 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 519(4) (1963)). In Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Sideboard, 
    161 Miss. 4
    , 
    133 So. 669
    (1931), this Court offered the following analysis for determining third-
    party-beneficiary status:
    (1) When the terms of the contract are expressly broad enough to include the
    third party either by name as one of a specified class, and (2) the said third
    party was evidently within the intent of the terms so used, the said third party
    will be within its benefits, if (3) the promisee had, in fact, a substantial and
    articulate interest in the welfare of the said third party in respect to the subject
    of the contract.
    
    Sideboard, 161 Miss. at 15
    .
    ¶11.   A third-party beneficiary also must benefit directly from the contract. 
    Adams, 943 So. 2d at 709
    (individual was not a third-party beneficiary where she did not sign the
    contract, was not alluded to in the contract, and had received no benefits from the contract).
    A mere incidental or consequential benefit is insufficient. 
    Adams, 943 So. 2d at 708
    (quoting
    
    Burns, 171 So. 2d at 325
    ).
    ¶12.   Simmons Housing, Inc., and Southern Energy Homes, Inc., argue that the Shelton
    children are third-party beneficiaries of the agreements signed by their parents. They
    contend that that the Shelton children directly benefitted from the contract by living in the
    mobile home, and that Roy and Kimberly had a legal duty to provide shelter for their
    children.
    ¶13.   The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confronted a similar set of
    facts in Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. v. Gaskamp, 
    280 F.3d 1069
    (5th Cir. 2002). There, the
    6
    Gaskamp parents purchased a mobile home from Fleetwood. 
    Id. at 1071. The
    parents signed
    certain documents that contained an arbitration provision. 
    Id. After moving into
    the home,
    the parents and their children began to experience health problems. 
    Id. Consequently, the Gaskamp
    parents filed suit individually and as next friends of their children against
    Fleetwood and several other defendants. 
    Id. at 1072. The
    Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law,4
    found that the children were not third-party beneficiaries of their parents’ contract, and thus
    could not be required to arbitrate under that theory. 
    Id. at 1075-76, 1077-78.
    The contract
    made no mention of the Gaskamp children and “[a]ny intention to confer a direct benefit
    [was] far from being ‘clearly and fully spelled out.’” 
    Id. at 1076. Significantly,
    the fact that
    the Gaskamp children had lived with their parents in the mobile home made them incidental,
    not direct, beneficiaries. 
    Id. ¶14. While Gaskamp
    is not binding on this Court, we consider it persuasive for this case.
    The Shelton children were not referenced or alluded to in the contract. Additionally, their
    living in the mobile home did not make them direct beneficiaries. Accordingly, we find that
    the Shelton children are not third-party beneficiaries to the agreements signed by their
    parents.
    Estoppel
    4
    Under Texas law, nonsignatories are bound to arbitration in only two situations: (1)
    where the nonsignatory sues on the contract; and (2) where the nonsignatory is a third-party
    beneficiary. 
    Gaskamp, 280 F.3d at 1074
    . Unlike Mississippi, 
    Qualcomm, 980 So. 2d at 269
    (quoting Bridas S.A.P.I.C v. Turkemistan, 
    345 F.3d 347
    , 356 (5th Cir. 2003)), Texas courts
    do not even mention additional possible bases for binding nonsignatories to arbitration.
    
    Gaskamp, 290 F.3d at 1076
    . The Fifth Circuit, nevertheless, noted that none of these
    additional theories bound the Gaskamp children to arbitration. 
    Id. 7 ¶15. Equitable
    estoppel is an extraordinary remedy that should be used with caution.
    
    Adams, 943 So. 2d at 709
    (citing B.C. Rogers Poultry, Inc. v. Wedgeworth, 
    911 So. 2d 483
    ,
    491 (Miss. 2005)). It is defined generally as “‘the principle by which a party is precluded
    from denying any material fact, induced by his words or conduct upon which a person relied,
    whereby the person changed his position in such a way that injury would be suffered if such
    denial or contrary assertion was allowed.’” B.C. 
    Rogers, 911 So. 2d at 492
    (quoting Dubard
    v. Biloxi H.M.A., Inc., 
    778 So. 2d 113
    , 114 (Miss. 2000)).
    ¶16.   In the arbitration context, equitable estoppel prevents a party from embracing the
    benefits of a contract while simultaneously trying to avoid its burdens:
    [T]he doctrine [of estoppel] recognizes that a party may be estopped from
    asserting that the lack of his signature on a written contract precludes
    enforcement of the contract’s arbitration clause when he has consistently
    maintained that other provisions of the same contract should be enforced to
    benefit him. To allow [a plaintiff] to claim the benefit of the contract and
    simultaneously avoid its burdens would both disregard equity and contravene
    the purposes underlying enactment of the [Federal] Arbitration Act.
    
    Terminix, 904 So. 2d at 1058
    (quoting 
    Bailey, 364 F.3d at 268
    ).
    ¶17.   Simmons Housing, Inc., and Southern Energy Homes, Inc., contend that the Shelton
    children’s claims arise from the contract. Having invoked rights under the contract by
    alleging a breach thereof, the Shelton children cannot now disclaim provisions they dislike.
    The Shelton children concede that the complaint “may appear” to rely in part on the terms
    of the contract. But they insist that they do not—and cannot—seek recovery for breach of
    contract. They rather assert that their claims are based on negligence, strict liability, and
    products liability.
    8
    ¶18.   In Terminix, this Court applied equitable estoppel to bind a nonsignatory to
    arbitration. 
    Terminix, 904 So. 2d at 1058
    . In that case, a husband and wife sued Terminix
    for negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, and fraudulent inducement. 
    Id. at 1053. Terminix
    sought to enforce arbitration against the husband and the wife, even
    though the wife had not signed the agreement. 
    Id. at 1053, 1057.
    This Court held that the
    wife was bound to the arbitration agreement under the ordinary principles of equitable
    estoppel. 
    Id. at 1058. The
    Court, however, gave very little discussion as to why equitable
    estoppel applied to the facts of that case. See 
    id. at 1057-58. A
    footnote suggests that the
    Court afforded great weight to the fact that the wife’s suit relied exclusively on the contract.
    See 
    id. at 1058 n.3.
    ¶19.   In Adams, this Court once again considered applying equitable estoppel to a
    nonsignatory of an arbitration agreement. 
    Adams, 904 So. 2d at 709
    . This time, the Court
    held that equitable estoppel did not apply. 
    Id. In Adams, a
    husband and wife entered into
    a financing agreement for the purchase of a mobile home. 
    Id. at 704. Years
    later, the
    assignee of the contract, GreenPoint, allegedly presented an unauthorized draft on the joint
    checking account of the husband and his daughter, Beth Brown. 
    Id. at 704. Father
    and
    daughter filed suit, and GreenPoint moved to compel arbitration. 
    Id. at 705. GreenPoint
    argued that Brown, a nonsignatory to her parents’ agreement, should be equitably estopped
    from avoiding arbitration. 
    Id. at 708-09. This
    Court found that equitable estoppel did not
    apply because the record did not reflect that GreenPoint relied upon and detrimentally
    changed its position as a result of Brown’s representations. 
    Id. at 709. 9
    ¶20.   We find that equitable estoppel should not be applied to this case. As in Adams, there
    is nothing to show that Simmons Housing, Inc., or Southern Energy Homes, Inc.,
    detrimentally relied on the Shelton children’s representations. See 
    Adams, 943 So. 2d at 709
    .
    And unlike Terminix, the Shelton children’s claims are not based solely on the retail
    installment contract.    Their claims include strict liability, negligence, and breach of
    warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code. Such claims are not dependent on the
    terms of the contract. See 
    Gaskamp, 280 F.3d at 1072
    n.3, 1075; May v. Ralph L. Dickerson
    Const. Corp., 
    560 So. 2d 729
    , 730-31 (Miss. 1990) (affirming that Section 11-7-20 of the
    Mississippi Code abolished the privity requirement for maintaining actions for negligence,
    strict liability, or breach of warranty).
    ¶21.   Simmons Housing, Inc., and Southern Energy Homes, Inc., emphasize that, to date,
    the Shelton children have not amended or withdrawn their complaint to strike any contract-
    related claims. The Shelton children explained during oral argument that they had not done
    so because the matter had been stayed.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶22.   We find that the Shelton children are not bound to arbitration as third-party
    beneficiaries, and that the principles of equitable estoppel do not apply. Therefore, we affirm
    the lower court’s decision. The Shelton children’s claims grounded in tort are remanded for
    further proceedings in the trial court, but their contract-related claims have been expressly
    relinquished.
    ¶23.   AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
    10
    CARLSON AND GRAVES, P.JJ., DICKINSON, RANDOLPH, LAMAR,
    KITCHENS, CHANDLER AND PIERCE, JJ., CONCUR.
    11