ILNews

COA affirms arbitration opinion on rehearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Rehearing a case at the request of the appellant, the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed its original opinion that trustees are not bound by an arbitration clause that was signed by predecessors.

In Smith Barney v. StoneMor Operating LLC, et al., No. 41A04-1103-MF-96, Smith Barney requested a rehearing of a trial court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration. Affirming its original opinion, the COA held that two companies that took control of a mortuary business did not sign the original client agreements the mortuary business had with Smith Barney. Those original agreements contained an arbitration clause, which Smith Barney claims applies to StoneMor and Independence Trust Co.

A mortuary business had been placed in receivership after its owner allegedly stole millions of dollars in cemetery trust funds. StoneMor agreed to buy the company, and Independence was appointed trustee of trusts that had been administered by the receiver, along with new trusts that StoneMor established. The trial court allowed StoneMor and Independence to assert receiver’s claims against Smith Barney, which they did by filing a complaint.

A week later, Smith Barney filed a motion to compel arbitration. Smith Barney claims that with respect to contracts, trust law clearly recognizes that a successor trustee is bound by contractual obligations entered into by its predecessor trustees relating to the trust. But the COA wrote that Smith Barney had not cited a single case in support of that claim.

The appeals court held that the appellees were not parties to the client agreements executed by predecessors Community Trust and Security Financial, and therefore did not personally agree to submit to arbitration. Smith Barney asserts that Independence Trust is nevertheless bound by the arbitration clause “as a consequence of [Independence Trust] assuming the position as the successor trustee to those predecessor trustees.”

Regardless of whether a “successor trustee” may be considered a “successor in interest” for purposes of the client agreements, the fact remains that Independence Trust did not sign the agreements. Consequently, there is no basis for compelling StoneMor to arbitrate its claims, the COA held, affirming the trial court’s judgment.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT