Oden Music, Inc., and Jason D. Oden v. First Baptist Church of East Gadsden

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/25/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091024 Oden M u s i c , I n c . , and J a s o n D. Oden v. First B a p t i s t Church Appeal o f E a s t Gadsden from Etowah C i r c u i t (CV-10-900118) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g MOORE, Judge. This and court's opinion of January 28, 2011, i s withdrawn, the following i s substituted therefor. 2091024 Oden M u s i c , appeal from an Inc., and Jason D. Oden ( " t h e o r d e r of the Etowah C i r c u i t defendants") Court ("the trial c o u r t " ) denying t h e i r motion to compel F i r s t B a p t i s t Church East the Gadsden ("the defendants. church") We the 12, defendants with to March upgrade 2010, the defendants and/or defendants church that The the total further alleged obligations representing refinished action they 21, 2010, pending the a contract church had f o r the "replacement, of agreed repair, various musical, audio, of the defendants the overpayment. had contract and would replace o r g a n when, i n f a c t , the church's On A p r i l entered into to which the defendants the that o r g a n w i t h a new that amount under a complaint against and church a l l e g e d t h a t i t had o v e r p a i d the and that filed i t had $34,662 installation $17,383 refund i t s claims against Procedural History the alleging video equipment." the and the defendants, pursuant pay arbitrate affirm. Facts On to of damaged 2 failed had refused The t o meet committed the their fraud church's to church by damaged they merely repaired and organ. the defendants arbitration; had they filed also a motion moved to to stay compel 2091024 arbitration. by the The d e f e n d a n t s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c l a i m s t h e church were s u b j e c t t o an a r b i t r a t i o n agreement, manufactured outside Oden M u s i c repair the State o f Alabama, competes i n an i n t e r s t a t e m a r k e t o f Hammond organs. motion were v e r i f i e d On May 7, The church interstate Taylor, court held on agreement, support the contract The church, the arbitration and t h e church c e r t a i n documents. trial court of their had allowed agreement, contended that some nexus with argued that Chris denied signature signing the the defendants had At the conclusion of the hearing, t h e p a r t i e s 14 d a y s t o f i l e briefs i n positions. i t s brief to t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n , church on t h e At thehearing, the however, On M a y 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e c h u r c h f i l e d arbitration i n the a hearing t h e c h u r c h ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t whose appeared forged that commerce. f o rt h e s a l e and by Oden. 2010, t h e t r i a l conceded and that factual allegations d e f e n d a n t s ' motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n . the that r e p a i r s t o b e made r e q u i r e d t h e p u r c h a s e a n d i n s t a l l a t i o n of p a r t s the asserted agreement argued that Taylor was denied 3 i n opposition arguing that invalid. Specifically, the signing the agreement. The 2091024 church also pointed out that the arbitration d a t e d M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e same d a t e a p r o p o s a l had made to leadership Finally, the the was dated, had not approved the proposal the church argued that parties' specifically, April church contract The c h u r c h the defendants that the church u n t i l M a r c h 16, 2 0 0 8 . indicative invoice, a sales 2, 2 0 0 8 , a n d a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 2008. of forgery, invoice dated a g r e e m e n t d a t e d M a r c h 14, stated: "The two sales invoices ... are obvious forgeries i n that there a r e many handwritten s e c t i o n s o f t h e two documents t h a t a r e i d e n t i c a l . I f you o v e r l a y t h e two documents i t becomes o b v i o u s that handwriting i n the 'Sold To' box and t h e m a j o r i t y of the f i r s t l i n e of the ' D e s c r i p t i o n ' box ('PA E q u i p m e n t & K e y b o a r d s ' ) a r e i d e n t i c a l . More i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e signatures a t t h e bottom of each of the documents are identical and each of the s i g n a t u r e s a p p e a r s a t e x a c t l y t h e same p l a c e o n t h e signature lines. T h e r e i s no p o s s i b i l i t y o f two documents e x e c u t e d s i x t e e n days a p a r t t o have t h i s many identical features. One or both of these d o c u m e n t s h a v e b e e n a l t e r e d a n d / o r c o p i e d f r o m some o t h e r document. "The Representation Agreement ... t h a t was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e [ c h u r c h ] i s an a l t e r e d c o p y . The d o c u m e n t t h a t was g i v e n t o [ t h e church] by the Defendant[s] i s a photocopy. On t h e p h o t o c o p i e d document t h e t i t l e o f 'admin. a s s t . ' i s w r i t t e n i n b l a c k b a l l p o i n t pen b e s i d e t h e s i g n a t u r e on t h e 'Buyer' l i n e . 4 was c e r t a i n documents r e l a t i n g t o were an u n d a t e d s a l e s and agreement 2091024 "The [ c h u r c h ] h a s a t t a c h e d a p h o t o c o p y o f t h e Representation Agreement The [ c h u r c h ] i s willing t o produce the original document f o r inspection should either the Court or the Defendant[s] desire t o see t h e a l t e r a t i o n as described above. The a l t e r a t i o n i s not clearly v i s i b l e on t h e p h o t o c o p y a t t a c h e d "The Representation Agreement states: "'[The church] agrees that [ t h e c h u r c h ] h a s h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t the o r g a n / P A s e t . [The c h u r c h ] further a g r e e s t h a t n o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n h a s b e e n made to [the church] by [thedefendants] nori t s a g e n t s w i t h r e g a r d t o age o f p r e v i o u s u s e o f s a i d e q u i p . A l l w a r r a n t i e s ... s h a l l b e made expressly i n writing by separate document entitled Warranty. No other w a r r a n t y ( i e s ) a r e made w h e t h e r expressed o[r] implied.' "The d a t e o n t h e R e p r e s e n t a t i o n A g r e e m e n t i s M a r c h 14, 2 0 0 8 . T h i s i s t h e same d a t e a s t h e p r o p o s a l .... It i s wholly i l l o g i c a l f o r t h e [church] t o have s i g n e d an agreement a c k n o w l e d g i n g the receipt of e q u i p m e n t o n t h e same d a y a s t h e p r o p o s a l " The church a t t a c h e d an a f f i d a v i t o f C h r i s T a y l o r , i n w h i c h he states: "On M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , J a s o n Oden p r e s e n t e d a p r o p o s a l t o t h e [church] f o r t h e replacement of various electronic and musical equipment a t t h e Church "The p r o p o s a l w a s d i s c u s s e d a t a c h u r c h m e e t i n g on M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 . A t t h e m e e t i n g , a v o t e w a s t a k e n t o a c c e p t t h e p r o p o s a l o f Oden M u s i c 5 2091024 "I was n e v e r p r e s e n t e d w i t h a n y arbitration a g r e e m e n t on M a r c h 14, 2 0 0 8 . I h a v e n e v e r s i g n e d a n y a r b i t r a t i o n agreement as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e [church]. I d i d not sign t h e document titled ' A r b i t r a t i o n or D i s p u t e s Agreement' t h a t i s dated M a r c h 14, 2008 " I h a v e h a d p a s t d e a l i n g s w i t h Oden M u s i c i n an individual capacity, and may have signed an a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t a s a n i n d i v i d u a l a t some p o i n t prior t o M a r c h 14, 2008. H o w e v e r , I h a v e never s i g n e d a n a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t i n my c a p a c i t y a s Administrative Assistant f o r the F i r s t Baptist Church of E a s t Gadsden. "The [undated s a l e s i n v o i c e ] a p p e a r s t o be a document that I signed, but i t has been s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r e d a f t e r I s i g n e d t h e document. When I s i g n e d t h e d o c u m e n t , i t was s i m p l y a r e c e i p t for e q u i p m e n t t h a t was l o a n e d t o t h e C h u r c h . Only t h e f i r s t l i n e was f i l l e d o u t i n t h e ' D e s c r i p t i o n ' b o x w h i c h s a i d 'PA E q u i p m e n t & K e y b o a r d s . ' "The [ s a l e s never presented document. i n v o i c e d a t e d A p r i l 2, 2 0 0 8 , ] was t o me, nor d i d I ever sign this "The [ R e p r e s e n t a t i o n A g r e e m e n t 2 0 0 8 , ] was n e v e r p r e s e n t e d t o me, s i g n t h i s document." The c h u r c h a l s o a t t a c h e d a copy of the minutes 2008, m e e t i n g , the defendants' sales d a t e d M a r c h 14, nor d i d I ever reflecting of a March 16, t h a t the church had v o t e d t o accept p r o p o s a l on t h a t d a t e ; a c o p y o f t h e i n v o i c e ; a copy of a s a l e s 2, 2008; a n d a c o p y o f a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a g r e e m e n t d a t e d M a r c h 14, 2008. 6 invoice dated A p r i l undated 2091024 On June 21, 2010, compel arbitration. appeal to the court the The Alabama t r a n s f e r r e d the 2-7(6), Ala. Code trial court defendants Supreme Court appeal to t h i s denied on motion to their filed the notice of July 27, 2010; court, pursuant to § that 12- 1975. Standard of Review " I n r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l to compel arbitration, [the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s ] review i s de novo. T h i s C o u r t has held that a t r i a l court's r u l i n g on a q u e s t i o n o f l a w i s n o t w i t h i n t h e trial court's discretionary function; therefore, rulings on t h e s e m o t i o n s a r e s u b j e c t t o de n o v o r e v i e w . A de novo r e v i e w i s a r e v i e w w i t h o u t any a s s u m p t i o n o f correctness." ^4- ^ ^ ^ ^ II Kenworth of Dothan, So. 273 2d 271, Inc. (Ala. v. Bruner-Wells Trucking, Inc., 745 1999). Discussion On meet appeal, i t s burden arbitration the of defendants proving argue that that Taylor the did church not did sign agreement. "A m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n i s a n a l o g o u s t o a m o t i o n f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t . The p a r t y seeking t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g the e x i s t e n c e of a c o n t r a c t c a l l i n g f o r a r b i t r a t i o n and proving that that contract involves a transaction affecting interstate commerce. Once s u c h a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g h a s b e e n made, t h e b u r d e n s h i f t s t o the party opposing arbitration to present some evidence indicating that there i s no arbitration 7 not the 2091024 agreement s u b j e c t to s p e c i f i c enforcement under the [ F e d e r a l A r b i t r a t i o n A c t , 9 U.S.C. § 1 e t s e q . ] . I f the p a r t y opposing a r b i t r a t i o n presents sufficient evidence to create a fact question as to the e x i s t e n c e of a v a l i d a r b i t r a t i o n agreement, then the i s s u e m u s t be r e s o l v e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r b y a j u r y , i f one i s requested." Ex parte Caver, 742 So. 2d 168, 172 n.4 ( A l a . 1999) (citation omitted). In Walter (Ala. the 2001) So. (plurality Alabama Court's I n d u s t r i e s , Inc. Supreme denial 2d at of 1082. arbitration their i n the had an signed them. In McMillans had refused arbitration separate initials filed to the agreement agreement used Jefferson compel filed motions alleging that the motions to they with were i n executing The their to 804 compel McMillans claims against compel a r b i t r a t i o n , had McMillans paragraph different than 8 contract to they an sign noted that containing the the containing refused the related to Circuit i n which they s t a t e d that that 1081 arbitration. a contractual paragraph and 2d appealed had agreement. corresponding the arbitrate affidavits initial arbitration arbitration t h e y had to So. to court, to 804 defendants following defendants circuit McMillan, the motions agreement response had opinion), Court The v. a the the initials that documents. "The 2091024 trial court found that the office and things, containing, the a r b i t r a t i o n provision,' g o i n g on is a serious that discretion Court issue i t s standard,'" held that, provided for their refused sign to provision discretion arbitration." Inc., 885 clear that was the the ... , we So. 100 We to the that defendants' to compel a r b i t r a t i o n instead, and the proper p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , we w i l l the 2d the defendants and the specifically the] arbitration c o u r t d i d not motions v. supreme at Supreme to abuse compel ProEquities, c o u r t made i t standard of review, i n Walter from Alabama they i n Hales that "'abuse-of- arbitration, ... other So. an the containing that, 804 support compel ( A l a . 2003), to appeals of that the t r i a l note i t used under sparse [paragraph conclude Id. 2d the stating i n denying standard standard of plurality among to observe case.'" was the a b u s e - o f - d i s c r e t i o n inapplicable was, a motions affidavits in this review "[g]iven McMillans' its taken back to the substituted Noting 1086. c o n t r a c t 'was were 'forgery pages ... Industries, the grant or d e n i a l which supra, was of a motion t h a t t h e de n o v o s t a n d a r d o f review s t a n d a r d t o be applied. Thus, as r e v i e w t h i s a p p e a l u s i n g t h e de review. 9 we novo 2091024 In the support ... Indus. , 804 compel case, signing So. 2d at the arguing other documents had an invoices that on response filed to a brief, he appeal; along with Further, 1 had been forged. the forged, After arbitration the in some respects, c o n s i d e r arguments rather, our review connected the defendants variation to raised is church Only be and failed in first i n the an church agreement f o r the to denied the o t h e r documents e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the cannot motion that been appear, the specifically c o u r t have the defendants, proffered time In evidence or arguments i n response. to this Court Walter that also i t s brief "This t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n . " agreement. indicating filed brief "sparse T a y l o r , i n which transaction p r e s e n t any presented church arbitration evidence defendants 1086. the s i g n e d by the presented the f o r t h e i r motion[] arbitration, affidavit to present to their time, two sales identical. f o r the restricted first to the I n R a g o n e v . A t l a n t i c V i d e o a t M a n h a t t a n C t r . , (No. 07 C i v . 6 0 8 4 , A u g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 ) (S.D.N.Y. 2 0 0 8 ) ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n F. S u p p . 2 d ) , a n d D a s s e r o v . E d w a r d s , 190 F. S u p p . 2 d 544 (W.D.N.Y. 2 0 0 2 ) , c i t e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r position, the alleged signatory i n each case failed to c a t e g o r i c a l l y deny s i g n i n g the a r b i t r a t i o n agreement. In the p r e s e n t case, however, T a y l o r d e n i e d s i g n i n g the a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t , s o we f i n d t h o s e c a s e s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . 1 10 2091024 evidence and Andrews v. For the the arguments Merritt first O i l Co., time church's considered on 612 appeal admissions So. the in by 2d the 409, trial 410 defendants i t s ( A l a . 1992). also complaint court." argue that that i t had i m p r o p e r l y a t t e m p t e d t o d e p o s i t an i n s u r a n c e c h e c k w i t h o u t check being p r o p e r l y endorsed and t h a t i t had w r i t t e n the defendants to c o v e r t h e c h e c k somehow b a l a n c e d o u t t h e a l l e g e d f o r g e r y o n part consider trial of that court. novo only trial defendants. Again, argument because i t was not So. at 410. evidence and arguments that conclude that t h a t T a y l o r d i d not the sign church the i n the court raised 612 we 2d this Andrews, the court, proving the funds check to the without having s u f f i c i e n t a the bank will not before the Considering 2 were met before i t s burden arbitration de the of agreement. The defendants argue t h a t , because our s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w i s d e n o v o , we c a n c o n s i d e r a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d f o r t h e first t i m e on a p p e a l . We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s c i t e no law i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n and t h a t t h i s c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d i n c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w was de n o v o t h a t a r g u m e n t s c o u l d n o t be r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . See S i m m o n s v . C a r w e l l , 10 S o . 3 d 576 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) ; s e e a l s o L a d a s L a n d & Dev., I n c . v . M e r r i t t & W a l d i n g P r o p s . , L . L . P . , 978 S o . 2 d 5 5 , 5 9 - 6 0 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007). 2 11 2091024 The defendants contention that Taylor d i d not cases cited So. by 2000), 286 (Ala. 2d i s s u e as thus, hearing. 1998) and Corp., the arguments of the rather, our considered -- the Accordingly, we F. courts their prove that I n two Supp. held be 439, 441-42 an evidentiary nor a t an As of trial cannot the 12 valid 791 (Ala. their to the trial on t h e briefs, first Andrews, 612 trial court the on briefs, and "[t]his t i m e on t o t h e e v i d e n c e and court." hold the a evidentiary hearing p r e v i o u s l y noted, is restricted was was 2d d i d they object support 482 case, however, forgery issue based s o l e l y in Coker, there So. the Burns signature In t h i s of v. 2d that decided arguments r a i s e d f o r the the of Prevost C o m p a s s B a n k , 727 request parties. review by -- dissenting). submitted cannot consider agreement. 126 issue should not support sufficiently to whether the p e r t i n e n t d e c i d i n g the evidence in C o l o n i a l Bank o f A l a b a m a v. motion to compel a r b i t r a t i o n , court's not defendants a l s o Ex p a r t e did did cases arbitration 1985) (Hooper, C.J., defendants church Servs. t h a t the See several the Sec. Tex. factual and, the s i g n the International (S.D. cite So. in the Court appeal; arguments 2d at error 410. for 2091024 failing to factual issues The conduct decision. 188 F.3d cited the cases In the documents cited Gregory by v. Interstate/Johnson defendants, appellate court judgment and remanded whether the signed arbitrate. the cause alleged o r was Because the trial a (Ala. Crim. disputed factual waiver of rights; determination d e c i d i n g the briefs, Ala. as App. concerned we court d i d i n Gregory. 644 App. issue a 637, 640, solely to the the 275 2d doctrine present on in Corp., reversed court the agreement this case f i n d no n e e d t o r e m a n d of has the State, 437 So. that a jury may decide whether to case. 154, to arbitration a party mandate a the Zajac trial 156 res v. White v. a jury court's Zajac, ( C i v . App. judicata, 2d signed a f f i d a v i t s , arguments, case. 13 the alter opinion trial case does not present So. to court acquiesces issue based s o l e l y happened i n the inapplicable that party the L e w i s v. regarding Lane simply bound by 1983), holds however, when for otherwise not unpublished signatory a l r e a d y made t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n , the an the signatures. d e f e n d a n t s do (table), the resolve the ( 4 t h C i r . 1999) agreement had 642, the and to the by c a s e as hearing 501 determine to evidentiary regarding remaining our an and 49 1972), which is Massachusetts 2091024 M u t u a l L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co., (1963), could determine signed be from a construed a but court i n this case had that Cornejo 0 9 - 0 5 5 6 4 MHP, May a to determine the properly denied extent the that not the extent trial forgery trial 2d 6, court whether mandate Fresh a that Supp. court to 2d the to trial [Ms. (N.D. use a 10 person Fish Grotto, i s s u e , but of properly on C Cal. handwriting i t does not argue relied on motion to compel require that the the trial church's severed conclusion that been from the that Taylor's forged, the court 14 the that contract. court to and arbitration could on pretermit arguments. erred agreement signature we court assertion r e s t of the trial trial arbitration. t h a t i t r e l i e d on a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e found had also conclude that the a u t h o r i z e d t o s i g n an a r b i t r a t i o n our agreement we defendants' i t a g r e e m e n t c o u l d be light a So. i n f a v o r of the defendants F. foregoing, defendants T a y l o r was to a not 157 so. B a s e d on the allowing Spenger's allows expert The to decide v. 585, comparison 2010] likewise t o do as i t does 17, 2010), it A l a . 581, handwriting document, issue. 275 discussion In have arbitration of those 2091024 Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we a f f i r m denying the defendants' APPLICATION motion OVERRULED; Thompson, P.J., and t o compel OPINION WITHDRAWN; O P I N I O N S U B S T I T U T E D ; 15 OF court's order arbitration. JANUARY 28, 2011, AFFIRMED. Pittman, concur. the t r i a l Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.