Edwards v. Costner, 1060099.
Decision Date | 17 August 2007 |
Docket Number | 1060099. |
Citation | 979 So.2d 757 |
Parties | Hoyt Randall EDWARDS, Jr., and Edwards Motors, Inc. v. Mark Wayne COSTNER and Matthew W. Kimbril. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
M. Andrew Donaldson and Mindi C. Robinson of Slaten & O'Connor, P.C., Montgomery, for appellants.
Joshua L. Firth and Steven W. Couch of Hollis & Wright, Birmingham, for appellees.
Hoyt Randall Edwards, Jr., and Edwards Motors, Inc., appeal the Etowah Circuit Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration of claims brought against them by Mark Wayne Costner and Matthew W. Kimbril. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
On November 23, 2004, Kimbril purchased a 1993 Ford Probe GT automobile from Edwards Motors.1 In conjunction with Kimbril's purchase of the Ford Probe, Edwards Motors and Kimbril entered into a predispute arbitration agreement, which provided:
(Capitalization in original.) The agreement was signed by Kimbril and a representative of Edwards Motors.
On November 26, 2004, the brakes on the Ford Probe purportedly failed while Costner was driving, causing the Probe to run into a brick wall. Kimbril was a passenger in the vehicle. Both Costner and Kimbril were injured as a result of the accident. Costner and Kimbril sued Edwards and Edwards Motors, alleging that the brakes had not been repaired before Kimbril purchased the vehicle, that Edwards and Edwards Motors had fraudulently misrepresented to Kimbril that the brakes had been repaired or replaced, that Edwards Motors had breached the terms of the sales contract by not replacing the brakes, and that Edwards and Edwards Motors had failed to warn Kimbril that the brakes were not working properly and that the brakes had not been replaced or repaired. Costner and Edwards sought a judgment in a sum in excess of the exclusive jurisdictional limits of the circuit court, i.e., $10,000. See § 12-11-30(1), Ala.Code 1975. Edwards and Edwards Motors moved the trial court to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings pending arbitration; the trial court denied the motion. Edwards and Edwards Motors appealed.
We review de novo the trial court's grant or denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Bowen v. Security Pest Control, Inc., 879 So.2d 1139, 1141 (Ala. 2003). Initially, the party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of a contract calling for arbitration and proving that that contract evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce. Polaris Sales, Inc. v. Heritage Imports, Inc., 879 So.2d 1129, 1132 (Ala. 2003). The moving party "must `"produce some evidence which tends to establish its claim."'" Wolff Motor Co. v. White, 869 So.2d 1129, 1131 (Ala.2003)(quoting Jim Burke Auto., Inc. v. Beavers, 674 So.2d 1260, 1265 (Ala.1995), quoting in turn In re American Freight Sys., Inc., 164 B.R. 341, 345 (D.Kan.1994)). Once the moving party has properly supported his or her motion to compel arbitration, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to present evidence tending to show that the arbitration agreement is invalid or inapplicable to the case. Polaris Sales, 879 So.2d at 1132.
Neither party disputes the existence of a contract calling for arbitration; the dispute here centers on whether the underlying transaction involves interstate...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Porter Capital Corp. v. Thomas
- Custom Performance Inc. v. Dawson
-
Porter Capital Corp. v. Thomas, 2101203
...to show that the arbitration agreement is invalid or inapplicable to the case. Polaris Sales, 879 So. 2d at 1132."Edwards v. Costner, 979 So. 2d 757, 761 (Ala. 2007).Page 9Discussion Porter Capital and Porter Bridge (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the lenders") argue on appeal, as......
-
Johnson v. Jefferson County Racing Ass'n
... ... "The moving party `must "`produce some evidence which tends to establish its claim.'"'" Edwards v. Costner, 979 So.2d 757, 761 (Ala.2007) (quoting Wolff Motor Co. v. White, 869 So.2d 1129, ... ...