Royal Ridge Construction, LLC v. Jo Lynn Spradlin

2025 Ark. App. 528

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 528 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-24-556

ROYAL RIDGE CONSTRUCTION, LLC Opinion Delivered November 5, 2025 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. 66FCV-24-398] JO LYNN SPRADLIN HONORABLE GREG MAGNESS, APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge

Royal Ridge Construction, LLC, appeals the circuit court order denying its motion

to compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed by Jo Lynn Spradlin. We affirm.

In December 2020, Spradlin signed a contract for Royal Ridge to construct a home

in Fort Smith. The contract, drafted by Royal Ridge, has nine pages with a total of twenty-

one paragraphs that include provisions for the scope of the work, the compensation,

cancellation and work-suspension rights, the commencement (January 2021) and completion

(October 2021) dates, insurance and risk of loss, and site visits, among other topics.

Paragraph sixteen on page seven is titled “Mediation and Arbitration – Small Claims.” It

provides that either party may request mediation or pursue a small claims action; if those

two methods of dispute resolution do not work, then the final alternative is to pursue mandatory arbitration. Paragraph sixteen has its own internal signature lines for both

parties:

THIS ARBITRATION CLAUSE WAS SEEN AND AGREED TO:

___________ _____________ ______________ (Owner) (Owner) (Contractor)

Only Spradlin signed this paragraph’s signature lines.

The nineteenth paragraph is titled “Severability,” and it recites that if any provision

of the contract is determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, then the remainder

of the contract will remain in full force and effect. On page nine, there are signature and

date lines for both partes:

SEEN AND AGREED TO:

____________________ __________________________ Owner Date Contractor Date

____________________ By________________________ Owner Date Signature Title

Only Spradlin signed and dated it.

Ultimately, Spradlin was dissatisfied with Royal Ridge’s construction. Spradlin

initiated arbitration, and the parties had an initial arbitration conference call in February

2024. Spradlin withdrew from arbitration when Royal Ridge could not produce a contract

that it signed.

In April 2024, Spradlin filed a lawsuit in circuit court. She appended the contract

she signed. Royal Ridge filed a motion to compel arbitration. At the hearing on the motion,

2 Jonathan Griffin (an owner of Royal Ridge) testified that the company would typically sign

the contract and he would be surprised if it had not, but a signed copy could not be found.

Griffin said Royal Ridge had never before tried to enforce arbitration under a contract like

this. Spradlin testified that she began with arbitration because she had signed the contract,

but when she realized that Royal Ridge had not signed the contract, she pursued the lawsuit.

The circuit court denied the motion to arbitrate, focusing on whether there was

mutual agreement and assent. The circuit court found it significant that there was a separate

signature block for paragraph sixteen within the construction contract. Absent mutual

assent, Royal Ridge could not demand arbitration nor would the court compel it. This

appeal followed.

An order denying a motion to compel arbitration is immediately appealable. Ark. R.

App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(12) (2025). We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to compel

arbitration de novo on the record. Heather Manor Care Ctr., Inc. v. Marshall by Ellis, 2024

Ark. App. 596, 704 S.W.3d 134. While we are not bound by the circuit court’s decision, in

the absence of a showing that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the law, we will

accept its decision as correct on appeal. Id. When a court is asked to compel arbitration, it

is limited to deciding two threshold questions: (1) whether there is a valid agreement to

arbitrate between the parties and, (2) if such an agreement exists, whether the dispute falls

within its scope. Id.

Was there a valid arbitration agreement between the parties? The parties agree that

this is the dispositive issue. We are guided here by the legal principle that contractual

3 agreements are construed against the drafter. Heather Manor, supra. We look to state contract

law to determine whether the parties’ agreement is valid. Id. In Arkansas, the essential

elements for an enforceable arbitration agreement are (1) competent parties, (2) subject

matter, (3) legal consideration, (4) mutual agreement, and (5) mutual obligation. Id. Royal

Ridge, as the proponent of the arbitration agreement, has the burden of proving these

essential elements. Id. The reviewing court employs an objective test for determining mutual

assent, looking for objective indicators of agreement and not subjective opinions. Pine Hills

Health & Rehab., LLC v. Matthews, 2014 Ark. 109, 431 S.W.3d 910; STAP, Inc. v. Sutterfield,

2020 Ark. App. 18, 592 S.W.3d 249.

This construction contract, drafted by Royal Ridge, contains the paragraph on

arbitration that has its own signature lines for both parties. What would be the purpose of

the signature lines related solely to the arbitration provision if not to manifest mutual assent

to arbitration? The construction contract also contains a severability clause that provides

that if any paragraph’s provisions are deemed invalid, then the remainder of the contract

provisions remain in effect. Royal Ridge agreed to construct the house for Spradlin and was

paid for its services. Royal Ridge did not, however, manifest its assent to the arbitration

provision, the only provision embedded within the contract that had signature lines for both

parties. Construing this contract against the drafter, Royal Ridge fails to convince us that

the circuit court committed reversible error.

Affirmed.

HARRISON and BROWN, JJ., agree.

4 Bradley D. Hull, for appellant.

Robertson, Beasley, Shipley & Robinson, PLLC, by: Christopher J. Hooks, for appellee.