Memorandum Opinion by Justice Soto, 08-24-00410-CV, January 27, 2026.
Synopsis
The Eighth Court of Appeals reaffirmed the “clear and unmistakable” delegation doctrine, holding that the express incorporation of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Rules in an agreement strips the trial court of the authority to decide threshold issues of enforceability and validity. Consequently, challenges involving contract formation, lack of mutuality, and failure to satisfy conditions precedent must be resolved by the arbitrator, necessitating the reversal of the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes Texas family law litigation, particularly involving complex Prenuptial (PMA) or Postnuptial Agreements and sophisticated Mediated Settlement Agreements (MSAs), practitioners frequently utilize “boilerplate” arbitration clauses that incorporate the AAA or JAMS rules. This ruling serves as a stark reminder that once those rules are invoked, the trial court loses its “gatekeeper” function. A spouse seeking to set aside a PMA based on unconscionability, fraud, or failure of a condition precedent will find themselves barred from a public courtroom; instead, they will be forced to argue the very existence and validity of the agreement before an arbitrator. This makes the drafting phase of marital agreements critical, as the incorporation of these rules effectively waives the right to have a district judge determine if the contract was validly formed.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Patriot Power Group, LLC and Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. entered into a service agreement for supplemental electrical power. The contract contained a “Dispute Resolution” provision requiring all disputes to be settled by arbitration conducted in accordance with the AAA Rules. It also contained a “carve-out” allowing Patriot Power to file suit specifically for the recovery of its equipment, and a requirement that the parties attempt to negotiate a settlement prior to arbitration.
When a dispute arose regarding the quality and emissions standards of the equipment provided, Fasken sued for breach of contract, fraud, and unconscionability. Fasken also sought a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to a lack of mutuality (caused by the carve-out) and that Patriot Power had waived its right to arbitrate by failing to engage in the mandatory pre-suit negotiation. Patriot Power moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the incorporation of the AAA Rules delegated all “gateway” questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The trial court denied the motion, leading to this interlocutory appeal.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration based on challenges to the agreement’s validity and conditions precedent. Specifically, the court addressed whether the incorporation of AAA Rules constitutes a clear and unmistakable delegation of the power to determine arbitrability—including issues of contract formation, mutuality, and compliance with pre-arbitration requirements—to the arbitrator rather than the court.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Texas precedent, specifically TotalEnergies E&P USA, Inc. v. MP2 Energy NE, LLC, which establishes that while courts generally decide “gateway” matters, parties may delegate these issues to an arbitrator by “clear and unmistakable” evidence. The court noted that the Texas Supreme Court and nearly every federal circuit have held that the express incorporation of the AAA Rules (which state the arbitrator has the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction) constitutes such a delegation. Furthermore, the court applied the principle from Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, which mandates that unless a party challenges the delegation clause specifically, the court must treat the delegation as valid and leave the challenge to the underlying contract for the arbitrator.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the text of the Dispute Resolution provision. Because the parties agreed that the “dispute shall be settled finally by arbitration to be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the American Arbitration Association,” they effectively imported the AAA’s jurisdictional rules into their contract. Fasken attempted to argue that recent 2022 amendments to the AAA rules suggested the rules only apply once arbitration is already “underway,” but the court rejected this as a distinction without a difference in the context of delegation.
Regarding the “carve-out” provision and the lack of mutuality argument, the court determined these were attacks on the enforceability of the arbitration agreement as a whole, rather than the delegation clause itself. Because the delegation was clear, the arbitrator—not the court—must decide if the carve-out rendered the agreement illusory. Similarly, Fasken’s argument that Patriot Power failed to satisfy a condition precedent (the negotiation requirement) was classified as a procedural arbitrability issue. Under the AAA rules, procedural hurdles and “conditions precedent” to arbitration are matters for the arbitrator to resolve. The court found that by incorporating the AAA rules, the parties moved the “who decides” needle firmly into the arbitrator’s camp.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed a reversible error by denying the motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that because the parties’ agreement incorporated the AAA Rules, they clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate all threshold questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
The court further held that Fasken’s defenses—including unconscionability, fraud in the inducement, and lack of mutuality—were challenges to the validity of the contract as a whole or the arbitration agreement generally, rather than specific challenges to the delegation of authority. Therefore, the trial court had no discretion but to stay the proceedings and refer the entire matter to arbitration.
Finally, the court held that any dispute regarding the fulfillment of conditions precedent, such as the mandatory negotiation clause, is a matter of procedural arbitrability that must be resolved by the arbitrator under the delegated authority of the AAA Rules.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes the “all or nothing” nature of AAA Rule incorporation. If you represent a party who wants to ensure a judicial forum for challenging the validity of a PMA (e.g., on grounds of involuntary execution or unconscionability under Tex. Fam. Code § 4.006), you must specifically exclude “gateway issues” from the arbitration clause or explicitly state that the court, not the arbitrator, retains the power to determine the validity and enforceability of the agreement. Conversely, if you represent the party seeking to uphold the agreement, ensure the AAA Rules are incorporated to avoid the delay and expense of a “mini-trial” on arbitrability in the district court.
Checklists
Drafting Strategic Arbitration Clauses
- Identify the Intent: Determine if the client prefers a private arbitrator or a public judge to decide if the contract is even valid.
- Explicit Incorporation: If delegation is desired, use the phrase “including disputes over the validity, enforceability, and scope of this agreement” alongside the reference to AAA Rules.
- Carve-outs: Be cautious with carve-outs (e.g., allowing a party to go to court for temporary orders). Ensure the language specifies that seeking such relief does not waive the right to arbitrate the remaining issues.
- Condition Precedent Clarity: Clearly state whether pre-suit mediation or negotiation is a condition precedent to the right to arbitrate or merely a contractual covenant.
Defeating a Motion to Compel Arbitration
- Attack the Delegation Clause Specifically: Do not just argue the PMA is unconscionable. You must argue the delegation of authority to the arbitrator is itself unconscionable or was not agreed upon.
- Formation vs. Validity: Distinguish between “did we ever sign this?” (formation) and “is this signature enforceable?” (validity). Courts may still look at “formation” if the delegation isn’t broad enough.
- Waiver by Litigation Conduct: Monitor if the opposing party has substantially invoked the judicial process to the point of prejudice before moving to compel.
Citation
Patriot Power Group, LLC v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd., No. 08-24-00410-CV (Tex. App.—El Paso Jan. 27, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in divorce litigation to bypass the emotional and often unpredictable “validity hearings” common in PMA disputes. In a scenario where a spouse challenges a PMA based on a lack of full disclosure of assets, the proponent of the PMA can use Patriot Power Group to immediately move the entire dispute—including the disclosure challenge—into private arbitration. This effectively silences the challenging spouse’s ability to use the public nature of a courtroom as leverage. Furthermore, if an MSA includes a “catch-all” arbitration clause referencing AAA rules, a party who later regrets the settlement and tries to claim “duress” or “mutual mistake” during the mediation will be forced to pay an arbitrator to hear that claim, rather than receiving a hearing from the trial judge who was originally set to sign the decree.
~~aca719dc-f2b2-402b-a7b4-8e6c4e201dbd~~
Share this content: