In Re Adm Investor Services, Inc.
53 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 363, 304 S.W.3d 371, 2010 Tex. LEXIS 174 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking to avoid enforcement of a forum-selection clause bears a heavy burden to show that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, and the right to enforce such a clause is not waived by minimal participation in litigation unless the party has substantially invoked the judicial process to the other's detriment.
Facts:
- In 2001, Jetta Prescott executed a commodities trading agreement with ADM Investor Services, Inc. (ADM).
- The agreement contained a forum-selection clause granting ADM the discretion to require that any litigation take place in Illinois.
- Texas Trading Company Incorporated acted as a broker and guarantor for Prescott's account.
- In early 2004, Prescott's account ran a deficit of $57,844.29, which ADM collected from Texas Trading's CEO, Charles Dawson.
- Dawson, in his individual capacity, previously sued Prescott in Texas over the deficit and obtained a judgment against her.
- Prescott, who was nearly 80 years old, suffered from chronic health problems including fibromyalgia and heart issues.
Procedural Posture:
- Jetta Prescott sued Texas Trading and ADM in a Rains County, Texas trial court.
- ADM responded by filing an answer, a motion to dismiss based on the forum-selection clause, and an alternative motion to transfer venue.
- The trial court denied ADM's motion to dismiss.
- ADM sought a writ of mandamus from the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals denied the petition, holding that ADM had waived its right to enforce the clause.
- ADM then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to dismiss the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to enforce a contractual forum-selection clause where the opposing party claimed waiver due to minor litigation activity and argued that enforcement was unreasonable because it would split the case against a co-defendant and be inconvenient due to the plaintiff's health?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Green
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to enforce the forum-selection clause. A party does not waive enforcement of a forum-selection clause without substantially invoking the judicial process, and the opposing party bears a heavy burden to prove that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust. Prescott failed to meet her burden on both points. ADM did not waive its rights, as its actions—filing an answer, a motion to dismiss, and waiting three months to request a hearing—did not amount to a substantial invocation of the judicial process. The court rejected the agency theory, finding no evidence that Texas Trading or Dawson had the authority to waive the clause on ADM's behalf. Furthermore, Prescott did not meet the heavy burden of showing enforcement would be unreasonable; the need to litigate against a co-defendant in a separate forum is not a sufficient reason, nor were her conclusory statements about her health adequate to prove that trial in Illinois would be so gravely difficult as to deprive her of her day in court.
Concurring - Justice Willett
Yes, the court reached the correct result. While agreeing with the majority, this opinion argues for greater clarity on the evidentiary standards required to defeat a forum-selection clause on medical hardship grounds. A party's own testimony about their health is insufficient; rather, a competent medical provider should attest that travel to the designated forum is medically prohibited, not merely inconvenient. The concurrence also calls for the court in a future case to better define opaque terms like 'seriously inconvenient' and 'unreasonable or unjust' in the context of medical hardship. This is particularly important because trial courts are judged on a 'clear abuse of discretion' standard, and it is inequitable to hold them to that standard without providing clear guiding principles.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the enforceability of forum-selection clauses in Texas by setting a high bar for challenges based on waiver or inconvenience. It clarifies that waiver requires more than preliminary litigation steps, demanding 'unequivocal' conduct that substantially invokes the judicial process to the other party's detriment. The ruling also solidifies the principle that practical difficulties, such as litigating against multiple parties in different states or facing personal hardship, will not overcome a clause unless the challenger meets a 'heavy burden' to show they would effectively be deprived of their day in court. This precedent provides greater certainty for contracting parties, especially businesses, that rely on these clauses to manage litigation risk across jurisdictions.
