Villacreses

Villacreses v. Molinari

Good Law
132 Cal. App. 4th 1223·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1509·2005 Daily Journal DAR 11674·34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 281·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8591
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 2005G034719California3,114 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

This is a cautionary tale. If the first rule of medicine is “Do no harm,” the first rule of contracting should be “Read the documents.”

Nicolas E. and Clare Villacreses appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration decision in favor of Arthur and Jane Molinari, the people who sold the Villacreses their home. Although the Villacreses contend the arbitrator erred in a couple of respects, affecting both the merits of the arbitration decision and the Molinaris’ entitlement to costs, their main complaint is that the parties never entered into any arbitration agreement at all.

We are compelled to agree with that latter contention. The only arbitration language in the parties’ agreement is the warning language required by statute to accompany any arbitration agreement contained in a real estate sale contract. That language is not itself intended to be an arbitration agreement, and we cannot construe it as one. Because the parties never entered into any cognizable arbitration agreement, the judgment, confirming the result of an arbitration conducted over the Villacreses’ objection, must be reversed. In light of that conclusion, the Villacreses’ other arguments, pertaining to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.