MacIvor v. Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Association, Inc., 06-24-00074-CV, February 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 456th District Court of Guadalupe County
Synopsis
The party moving to compel arbitration bears the initial evidentiary burden to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement under traditional contract principles. In this case, because the movant failed to provide evidence that a purported amendment to property covenants—which contained the arbitration clause—was validly adopted, the trial court erred in compelling arbitration; the legal presumption favoring arbitration does not arise until the agreement’s existence is proven.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of Texas family law, this ruling is a critical reminder for practitioners litigating the enforceability of arbitration clauses within Premarital Agreements, Postmarital Agreements, or complex Property Settlement Agreements. When a party seeks to compel arbitration based on a modified agreement or an ancillary “resolution” to a trust or marital estate plan, they cannot simply rely on the “strong policy favoring arbitration” to bypass the evidentiary requirement of proving the instrument was legally executed or adopted. If the formation of the underlying contract is in doubt—such as a challenge to the validity of a signature or the satisfaction of conditions precedent for an amendment—the trial court must resolve the “existence” of the agreement as a gateway matter before any referral to an arbitrator.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
James P. MacIvor owned property in a flying community governed by the Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Association (ZAFCOA). A dispute arose regarding delinquent assessments, and ZAFCOA filed a petition to compel arbitration. ZAFCOA’s demand was based on a “2015 Resolution” which purportedly amended the subdivision’s original Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) to include a mandatory arbitration clause. MacIvor opposed the motion, arguing that the 2015 Resolution was never validly adopted according to the procedures required by the CCRs and, therefore, no valid arbitration agreement existed. At the hearing on the motion to compel, ZAFCOA offered no evidence to prove the 2015 Resolution had been properly adopted by the community members. Despite this evidentiary gap, the trial court determined an agreement existed, compelled arbitration, and subsequently confirmed an award against MacIvor and two non-signatory entities.
Issues Decided
The Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court erred in compelling arbitration when the movant failed to meet its initial burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Specifically, the court examined whether the “presumption” in favor of arbitration applies to the threshold question of whether a contract was formed.
Rules Applied
The court applied the de novo standard of review to the question of an arbitration agreement’s “existence,” as established in Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC (2025). Under Texas law, arbitration is a matter of contract and consent, not coercion. While a presumption in favor of arbitration exists once an agreement is established, the party seeking to compel arbitration must first carry the burden of showing the agreement exists under traditional contract principles. The court also relied on Royston, Rayzor, Vickery, & Williams, LLP v. Lopez to clarify that the burden only shifts to the party opposing arbitration after the proponent establishes the agreement’s validity and scope.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the distinction between the “existence” of an agreement and the “scope” of an agreement. The court noted that ZAFCOA merely attached the purported 2015 Resolution to its petition but failed to offer any testimony or documentary evidence at the hearing to prove the resolution was adopted in compliance with the subdivision’s governing documents. Because MacIvor challenged the very formation of the agreement (the “existence” of the amendment), the trial court was required to apply ordinary contract law. The court rejected the notion that the trial court could simply “presume” the agreement was valid. By failing to provide a record that the 2015 amendment was “born” through proper corporate or community action, ZAFCOA never triggered the presumption in favor of arbitration. Consequently, the trial court’s order compelling arbitration was an abuse of discretion.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in compelling arbitration because the Appellee did not satisfy its initial burden to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The court emphasized that the existence of an agreement is a “gateway matter” for the court, not the arbitrator, and is subject to de novo review.
The court further held that because the initial referral to arbitration was improper, the subsequent arbitration award was void, and the trial court’s judgment confirming that award must be reversed.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, this case serves as a shield against “phantom” arbitration clauses in modified agreements. If a spouse attempts to enforce an arbitration provision found in an unsigned “Exhibit A” to a pre-nuptial agreement or a purported amendment to a family trust, the practitioner must immediately challenge the existence of that specific amendment. Do not concede the agreement exists and argue scope; instead, force the proponent to provide an evidentiary basis (e.g., proof of mailing, member votes, or notary authentication) that the amendment was validly adopted.
Checklists
Challenging the Existence of the Agreement
- Identify the Source: Determine if the arbitration clause is in the original contract or a subsequent amendment.
- Verify Execution: Check for compliance with the Texas Family Code’s requirements for premarital or postmarital agreements (written, signed by both).
- Review Amendment Clauses: If the clause is in an amendment, verify that the original contract’s procedure for amendments was followed to the letter.
- Object Early: Ensure the challenge to the “existence” of the agreement is made in the trial court response to the motion to compel to preserve de novo review.
- Demand an Evidentiary Hearing: Ensure the record reflects a lack of evidence regarding the formation of the agreement.
Proving the Existence of the Agreement
- Authentication: Provide affidavits or testimony from the notary or witnesses to the signing.
- Corporate/Entity Formalities: If the agreement involves a trust or family-limited partnership, provide minutes or resolutions showing the amendment was properly adopted.
- Bridge the Gap: Explicitly connect the arbitration clause to the specific dispute at hand before asking the court to apply the “presumption” of arbitration.
Citation
MacIvor v. Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Ass’n, Inc., No. 06-24-00074-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Feb. 19, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be effectively weaponized in divorce litigation involving “Informal Settlement Agreements” or “draft” MSAs. Frequently, parties exchange drafts of settlement agreements that include arbitration clauses for future disputes. If a spouse tries to compel arbitration based on a draft that was never formally executed or “Rule 11-ed,” MacIvor confirms that the trial court cannot simply defer to an arbitrator to decide if the draft is binding. The practitioner can prevent a case from being moved to a private (and often expensive) arbitrator by highlighting the proponent’s failure to prove the legal existence of the specific instrument containing the arbitration clause. This is particularly potent when dealing with non-signatories, such as when a spouse tries to pull a closely held business entity into arbitration based on a personal marital agreement. Under MacIvor, the “gateway” remains the courtroom until a valid contract is proven.
~~e4eb2c6a-e544-4da5-9839-d18d7465dab2~~
Share this content: