|
Rejecting an argument that because an arbitration agreement did not expressly state that judgment must be entered in a "circuit court" it was therefore revocable; a Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the enforcement of a broadly worded agreement to arbitrate.
Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, PLLC, No. 273173, 2007 WL 1429691 (Mich. Ct. App. May 15, 2007) involved a dispute between two accounting firms over client solicitation: Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC (R&S) and Plante & Moran (P&M).
Matthew Rooyakker and George Sitz, former employees of P&M, formed R&S after P&M closed the local office where the two worked. While employed by P&M, the men had signed both a non-slicitation of clients and an arbitration agreement.
When R&S began providing accounting services to several former P&M clients, P&M moved to compel arbitration. R&S argued that the clause was revocable because the Michigan Arbitration Act required entry of judgment to take place in a "circuit court," not in "any court having jurisdiction." The Court rejected this argument.
First, the Court distinguished this case from one where no language in the agreement provided for court enforcement. Here, the Court said, the contract provided for court enforcement. Second, the Court cited several cases where similarly worded agreements where upheld as enforceable.
Third, and finally, the Court noted that Michigan public policy favors arbitration, and that to find an agreement revocable "simply because it does not contain he words 'circuit court' would seem contrary to that public policy."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|