Carter v. Morrow, [Ms. SC-2024-0494, Mar. 21, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Wise, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Mitchell and McCool, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result) affirms in part and reverses in part the Franklin Circuit Court’s judgment denying Trista Carter’s motion to compel arbitration in a dispute arising from Carter’s alleged breach of a real estate purchase agreement with Johnny and Martha Morrow. The arbitration provision allowed litigation to resolve disputes concerning the $25,000 earnest money deposit by Carter but required arbitration of any other claim arising from the agreement, such as the claim asserted by the Morrows for breach of contract and consequential damages. Ms. **12-14.
The Court holds “‘if a dispute presents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not, the former must be sent to arbitration even if this will lead to piecemeal litigation.’” Ms. *15, quoting KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 565 U.S. 18, 19, 132 S. Ct. 23, 24, 181 L. Ed. 2d 323 (2011).