Arbitration as a matter of contract; Altobelli v Hartmann; Requirement that a valid agreement exist for arbitration to be binding; Ferndale v Florence Cement Co; Principle that a party cannot be required to arbitrate an issue it has not agreed to submit to arbitration; Lichon v Morse; Principle that the existence of an arbitration agreement & the enforceability of its terms are judicial questions for the trial court, not the arbitrators; Fromm v Meemic Ins Co

The court held that the trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, then sued defendant alleging breach of contract and claiming it refused to recognize that its disagreement was arbitrable. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred by finding it was for the arbitrator, not the trial court, to decide whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed. It found it was undisputed that plaintiff’s rental agreement with defendant-Stansley, which was not part of this appeal, contained an arbitration clause. But the parties disputed whether defendant assumed that rental agreement—and by extension the arbitration clause—when it purchased certain assets of Stansley. Schedule 1.1(a) to the asset purchase agreement “included a list of specific liabilities [defendant] assumed when it purchased” Stansley’s assets, and the “rental agreement is not included in that list.” Defendant continued to receive services from plaintiff under the rental agreement until 1/21, so the issue was whether defendant implicitly assumed liability for the “rental agreement or otherwise became bound by that agreement. Resolution of this issue—whether” defendant was a party to the agreement, “including the arbitration provision—was for the trial court to determine, not the arbitrator.” Reversed and remanded.