law-ILA-arbitration  | interlocutory appeals | finality of order or judgment for purposes of regular appeal | arbitration
mandamus | TAA vs. FAA | FAA applicability |

WHEN CAN AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE ARBITRATION AWARD, OR
CONFIRMATION THEREOF,  BE APPEALED?

The Texas General Arbitration Act makes certain orders appealable, including an order “vacating an [arbitration]
award without directing a rehearing.”  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.  171.098(a)(5) (Vernon 2005).  In the
underlying case, the trial court confirmed the arbitration award.  In the bill of review proceeding, the arbitration
award was vacated, but the court's ruling was not based on the provisions in the Texas General Arbitration Act for
vacating such an award.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.  171.088 (Vernon 2005).  Therefore, section
171.098 does not apply to provide for an interlocutory appeal under these facts.  See Rapid Settlements, Ltd. v.
Allstate Life Ins. Co., No. 01-08-00381-CV, 2009 WL 1331580 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] May 8, 2009, no. pet.)
(mem. op.) (dismissing appeal from bill of review vacating arbitration award as interlocutory).



Under the TAA, a party can appeal an order or judgment that either: (1) denies an application to compel
arbitration made under section 171.021, or (2) grants an application to stay arbitration under section
171.023. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.098(a)(1), (2). The Act is one-sided, allowing interlocutory
appeals solely from orders that deny arbitration.

Similarly, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) makes no provision for an interlocutory appeal from an order
compelling arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 16. Because the FAA does not provide for interlocutory appeals from
orders compelling arbitration, we concluded in American Homestar and Freis that mandamus was the
appropriate remedy. See Am. Homestar, 50 S.W.3d at 483; see also Freis v. Canales, 877 S.W.2d 283,
284 (Tex. 1994).

INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS IN ARBITRATION DISPUTES - MANDAMUS REVIEW

Aeternia Enterprises, U.S.A., v. Magnitogorsk Steel and Wire Works (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 18, 2009)
(Op. by Higley)(order compelling arbitration is not an appealable judgment, DWOJ)(arbitration disputes)
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Higley    
Before Justices Jennings, Alcala and Higley  
01-05-00964-CV  Aeternia Enterprises, U.S.A., Ltd. v. Magnitogorsk Steel and Wire Works    
Appeal from 133rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lamar McCorkle

Bradt v. MBNA America, N.A. (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 12, 2009)(per curiam dimissal)
(trial court order compelling arbitration not immediately appealable)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam  
Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Sullivan
14-08-01172-CV L.T. Bradt and Joseph Rothstein v. MBNA America, N.A.
Appeal from 240th District Court of Fort Bend County
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Ralph Culver  

Moore v. Verizon Wireless (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 29, 2009)(per curiam) (ILA)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam  
Before Justices Frost, Brown and Boyce
14-08-01164-CV Walter Moore v. Verizon Wireless and Derrick Keys
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 3 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Linda Storey
The Texas Arbitration Act allows interlocutory appeals solely from orders that deny arbitration.  See Tex. Civ. Prac.
& Rem. Code §171.098(a)(1), (2);

Chambers v. O'Quinn, 242 S.W.3d 30, 31 (Tex. 2007) ("In this case, we consider whether the court of appeals had
jurisdiction to review an order compelling arbitration under the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) as part of the appeal of
a final judgment in the case. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.001-.098. The court of appeals
concluded that mandamus was the appropriate remedy and dismissed the appeal in a memorandum opinion
reasoning that, because mandamus relief had previously been denied by another court of appeals and this Court, it
lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the issue. ___ S.W.3d ___. Because we disagree that the previous
mandamus proceedings deprived the court of appeals of appellate jurisdiction in this matter, we reverse the court
of appeals’ judgment and remand the case for its review on the merits.")

Mason v. Mason (Tex.App. Houston [14th Dist.] May 15, 2008)(per curiam) (family court arbitration,
no interlocutory appeal of motion to confirm arbitration award in family law case)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam  
14-07-00991-CV Jason S. Mason v. Patricia A. Mason
Appeal from 308th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Judge Georgia Dempster  

Aspen Technology, Inc. v. Shasha (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 27, 2008)(Frost)
(interlocutory appeals dismissed, arbitration mandamus granted)
DISMISSED: Opinion by Justice Frost
14-07-00303-CV Aspen Technology, Inc. v. Abe Shasha
Appeal from 165th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Elizabeth Ray

Can order denying confirmation of award be challenged in interlocutory appeal?
In Re Thrivent Financial for Lutherans (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 1, 2007)(Higley)
(motion to confirm arbitration award denied, order for rehearing by different arbiter, no interlocutory appeal
jurisdiction)(suit to confirm arbitration award, due process, notice, securities)
DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: Opinion by Justice Higley
01-07-00484-CV In re Thrivent Financial For Lutherans
Appeal from County Court at Law of Austin County (Hon. June Jackson)


CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS  

HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE