Gaither v. Wall & Assocs., Inc.

Citations

• 2017 Ohio 765

Syllabus

The arbitration agreement between Appellant and Appellees was not procedurally unconscionable. Because both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be established in order to prevent enforcement of an arbitration agreement, Appellant cannot prevail on this claim. However, Appellant is correct that a \loser pays\ provision in the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because it is against public policy. This provision requires the losing party to pay the costs, including attorney fees, of the party who substantially prevails in arbitration. Although this provision is against public policy, it can be severed from the arbitration agreement. Thus, the arbitration agreement may still be enforced and the motion for stay would have been appropriately granted. Nonetheless, the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, rather than granting the motion for a stay pending arbitration. Reversed and Remanded for entry of an order granting Appellees' motion for stay of the proceedings pending arbitration. (Froelich, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).