Arbitration Clause

[GASocrates]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GA

During the recession I decided to rent out my house that I could not sell. I have a former tenant that filed a small claim action against me. My lease has an arbitration clause in it declaring binding arbitration as the method for settling any disputes. I had the arbitration clause added to my leases to reduce the costs of legal action and to discourage frivolity. The clause however does not specify who will pay the arbitration fees. Just like a normal lease does not state who will pay legal fees. How is this typically handled? Should it be any different from legal fees? Should the magistrate court dismiss the claim in light of a jurisdiction defense? Can the magistrate court order the landlord to pay for arbitration fees if the landlord is not bringing the action?

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GA

During the recession I decided to rent out my house that I could not sell. I have a former tenant that filed a small claim action against me. My lease has an arbitration clause in it declaring binding arbitration as the method for settling any disputes. I had the arbitration clause added to my leases to reduce the costs of legal action and to discourage frivolity. The clause however does not specify who will pay the arbitration fees. Just like a normal lease does not state who will pay legal fees. How is this typically handled? Should it be any different from legal fees?

Should the magistrate court dismiss the claim in light of a jurisdiction defense?

Can the magistrate court order the landlord to pay for arbitration fees if the landlord is not bringing the action?

You get one right and one wrong.

If the proper motion is presented, the claim should be dismissed with prejudice and the dispute consigned for resolution by arbitration.

However, a court of law cannot rewrite the agreement.

It is only when in construing the language in a contract it is found to be susceptible of different interpretations that a court is allowed to admit extrinsic evidence of the parties intention with regard to the subject and construe it accordingly. But the subject itself must be addressed in the writing, here it is not.