holding that the question of whether a party has agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law requiring de novo review
How later courts described this case
- holding that the question of whether a party has agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law requiring de novo review
- holding that the question whether a party has agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law requiring de novo review
- “[m]ere inequality of bargaining power is insufficient to invalidate an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Colleen Conway Cooney, Judge,
concurring in judgment only.
{¶ 23} I concur in judgment only ,and write separately because I do not agree that the majority has applied the appropriate standard of review.
{¶ 24} This court has consistently held that we review a trial court’s decision denying a stay of proceedings and referral to arbitration under the abuse-of-discretion standard.
Sikes v. Ganley Pontiac Honda, Inc.,
Cuyahoga App. No. 82889, 2004-Ohio-155 , 2004 WL 67224 ;
Coble v. Toyota of Bedford,
Cuyahoga App. No. 83089, 2004-Ohio-238 , 2004 WL 99039 , citing
Harsco Corp. v. Crane Carrier Co.
(1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 406, 410 , 701 N.E.2d 1040 . As the
Harsco
court noted:
{¶ 25} “ ‘The process of review for abuse of discretion has been summarized as follows, in Brennan,
Standards of Appellate Review,
33 Def. L.J. 377 (1984):
{¶ 26} “ T. Did the lower court have discretion to act as it did?
{¶ 27} “ ‘a. If not, an error of law was made, and the appellate court may freely review the action taken.
{¶ 28} “ ‘b. If so, then the appellate court may not review the action unless there was an abuse of discretion.’ Whiteside, Ohio Appellate Practice (1991), Standards of Review, 152, fn. 18.” Id. at fn. 2.
{¶ 29} Applying the principle as set forth above, the trial court had the discretion to determine whether to grant or deny the motion for stay and referral to arbitration. R.C. 2711.02 requires a stay of proceedings if the trial court is “satisfied” that the issue is referable to arbitration. Therefore, we must review the instant case under the abuse-of-discretion standard.