Woolls

Woolls v. Superior Court

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 4th 197·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 302·2005 Daily Journal DAR 2349·25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 426·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1778
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 2005B177992California5,668 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Petitioner Paul Woolls (Woolls) seeks a writ of mandate to set aside respondent superior court’s order denying his petition to vacate an arbitration award obtained by real parties in interest Thomas C. Turner and Thomas Turner doing business as T&T Construction (collectively, Turner). Woolls moved to vacate the award on the ground the arbitration agreement failed to comply with Business and Professions Code section 7191.

Section 7191 requires arbitration provisions in contracts for work on residential property of one to four units to satisfy certain disclosure requirements, including an advisement to the consumer that he or she is giving up the right to have the dispute litigated in a court or jury trial. (§7191, subd. (b).) The essential issue presented is the consequence of an arbitration agreement’s noncompliance with section 7191.

We conclude the noncompliant arbitration provision cannot be enforced “against any person other than the licensee.” (§ 7191, subd. (c).) Therefore, we grant Woolls’s petition for writ of mandate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The two arbitration provisions.

On October 8, 2002, Woolls, a homeowner, and Turner, a contractor,…

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.