Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rachal v. Reitz

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)

Decided July 22, 2011No. 05-09-01422-CVPublished

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion By

Justice MURPHY.

The majority concludes that Hal Rachal, Jr., as the successor trustee to the written trust agreement established by John W. Reitz’s father, cannot enforce that agreement’s mandatory arbitration provision against Reitz. The majority reasons that the trust agreement is not a contract and does not meet the requirements of Texas contract law. Because I would conclude Rachal met his burden to show an agreement to arbitrate the parties’ dispute under the Texas General Arbitration Act, I respectfully dissent. See Tex. Civ. PraC. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 171.001-.098…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. WebsterTexas Supreme Court · 2003
  2. In Re Firstmerit Bank, N.A.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
  3. In Re Weekley Homes, L.P.Texas Supreme Court · 2005
  4. In Re Palm Harbor Homes, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Nafta Traders, Inc. v. QuinnTexas Supreme Court · 2011

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API