AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In 2007, Wanda Ezell became a resident of a nursing home in Artesia, New Mexico, managed by Shull Management Inc. and others. After a stay of less than two months, Ms. Ezell passed away. Her estate, represented by F. Michael Hart, filed a lawsuit under the New Mexico Wrongful Death Act against the nursing home's administrators. The lawsuit's viability in district court hinged on the interpretation of the nursing home Admission Agreement signed on Ms. Ezell's behalf, specifically a section mandating dispute resolution through binding arbitration in accordance with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) Code of Procedure (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied Defendants' motions to compel arbitration.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the lawsuit should proceed in district court due to the unavailability of the stipulated arbitrator, NAF, which ceased handling new consumer disputes in 2009 (para 4).
• Defendants: Filed motions to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement signed upon Ms. Ezell's admission to the nursing home (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the unavailability of the stipulated arbitrator, NAF, renders an arbitration agreement wholly unenforceable.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, per J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges James J. Wechsler and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, based its decision on precedent from the case Wrongful Death Estate of Clifford Cooper v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, which found an identical arbitration agreement unenforceable due to the unavailability of NAF. This decision was supported by the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in Rivera v. American General Financial Services., Inc., which established that an arbitration agreement becomes unenforceable when the designated arbitrator is integral to the agreement and is unavailable. The Court concluded that the arbitration clause in the present case, using language identical to that in Cooper and mandating arbitration through NAF, was integral to the agreement. Therefore, NAF's unavailability rendered the entire agreement unenforceable, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision (paras 5-7).