Ex parte Thicklin
Decision Date | 11 January 2002 |
Citation | 824 So.2d 723 |
Parties | Ex parte Sharon THICKLIN. (In re Sharon Thicklin v. Fantasy Mobile Homes, Inc., et al.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
G. Houston Howard II of Howard, Dunn, Howard & Howard, Wetumpka, for petitioner.
Charles B. Paterson and J. Beth Moscarelli of Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Montgomery, for appellee Fantasy Mobile Homes (brief in support of application for rehearing filed by Sterling G. Culpepper and Charles B. Paterson of Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Montgomery).
John R. Bradwell of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C., Montgomery, for appellees Riverchase Homes and Cavalier Manufacturing, Inc.
W. Scott Simpson, Dan E. Batchelor, and Gordon L. Blair of Batchelor & Simpson, P.C., Birmingham, for amicus curiae Southern Energy Homes, Inc., on application for rehearing.
On Applications for Rehearing
The opinion of October 12, 2001, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor. Sharon Thicklin is the plaintiff in an action pending in the Elmore Circuit Court. She petitions for a writ of mandamus directing Judge John B. Bush to vacate his order of June 30, 2000, granting the defendants' motions to compel arbitration, and his order of September 21, 2000, denying Thicklin's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the June 30 order. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the petition in part and deny it in part.
I.
On June 22, 1998, Thicklin purchased a mobile home from Fantasy Mobile Homes, Inc. ("Fantasy"). Fantasy is located in Montgomery. Cavalier Manufacturing, Inc., doing business as Riverchase Homes, manufactured the home in Haleyville. Cavalier is a Delaware corporation; Riverchase is a division of Cavalier (the manufacturer will hereinafter be referred to as "Riverchase"). Thicklin and representatives of Riverchase and Fantasy executed a document entitled an "Acknowledgment and Agreement (HUD Code Home)." Paragraph 10 of that contract contains the following arbitration clause:
(Capitalization in original.)
Thicklin says that Riverchase provided her with a written warranty and a homeowner's manual, but neither, she says, mentioned arbitration. On December 27, 1999, Thicklin sued Riverchase and Fantasy. She alleged that Riverchase had breached express and implied warranties; had violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. ("the Magnuson-Moss Act"); had negligently or wantonly constructed the mobile home; had negligently or wantonly attempted to repair the mobile home; and had defrauded her. She alleged that Fantasy had breached implied warranties; had violated the Magnuson-Moss Act; had negligently or wantonly delivered and set up the mobile home; and had negligently or wantonly attempted to repair the mobile home. Riverchase and Fantasy then moved to compel arbitration, and Thicklin opposed those motions. Thicklin also amended her complaint to allege that Riverchase and Fantasy had conspired to deprive her of certain rights guaranteed her by the Magnuson-Moss Act. After the trial court granted Riverchase and Fantasy's motions to compel arbitration and denied Thicklin's motion to alter, amend, or vacate its decision, Thicklin filed this petition for the writ of mandamus.
Ex parte McNaughton, 728 So.2d 592, 594 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 818, 120 S.Ct. 59, 145 L.Ed.2d 52 (1999). A petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper means by which to challenge a trial court's order granting a motion to compel arbitration.1 Ex parte Napier, 723 So.2d 49 (Ala. 1998). We review an order granting a motion to compel arbitration under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Ex parte Morris, 782 So.2d 249 (Ala.2000).
III.
Thicklin first argues that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2 ("the FAA"), does not apply in this case because, she argues, her mobile-home purchase was not a transaction that affected interstate commerce. In Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. McCray, 788 So.2d 882 (Ala.2000), we rejected a similar argument. "An Alabama resident's purchase of a new mobile home—even one manufactured in Alabama —can be a transaction that substantially affects interstate commerce, and the evidence indicates that the McCrays' purchase of their mobile home was such a transaction." 788 So.2d at 883 (footnote omitted).
Riverchase and Fantasy presented evidence concerning the effect on interstate commerce of Thicklin's purchase of her mobile home. An affidavit provided by Fantasy's sales manager states, in pertinent part:
An affidavit provided by Riverchase's sales manager states, in pertinent part:
We conclude that the evidence in this case indicates that Thicklin's purchase of her mobile home was a transaction that substantially affected interstate commerce. Therefore, the FAA applies to this transaction.
IV.
Thicklin next contends that the Magnuson-Moss Act prohibits the enforcement of the arbitration clause and that this Court should overrule Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Ard, 772 So.2d 1131 (Ala.2000). Thicklin also contends that, even if the Court refuses to overrule Ard, the arbitration clause in this case is unenforceable because Riverchase did not disclose the arbitration clause in its written warranty or in its consumer manual and because the arbitration clause imposes upon a plaintiff who is pursuing federal statutory claims the costs and expenses of the arbitration process.
In Ard, we held that the Magnuson-Moss Act does not invalidate an arbitration provision contained in a warranty. 772 So.2d at 1135. Since then, we have consistently applied Ard, and it is clearly the law of this State. See, e.g., Cavalier Mfg., Inc. v. Jackson, 823 So.2d 1237, opinion on return to remand, 823 So.2d at 1245 (Ala. 2001); Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Turner, 796 So.2d 295 (Ala.2001); McCray, 788 So.2d at 883-84; Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Nalley, 777 So.2d 99 (Ala. 2000); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Gregor, 777 So.2d 79 (Ala.2000); Harold Allen's Mobile Home Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Early, 776 So.2d 777 (Ala.2000); Southern Energy Homes, Inc....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ankrom v. State (Ex parte Ankrom)
...to the courts." See also Cavalier Mfg., Inc. v. Jackson, 823 So. 2d 1237, 1248 (2001), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 2002) ("The Legislature is endowed with the exclusive domain to formulate public policy in Alabama, a domain upon which the judiciary sh......
-
Birmingham News Co. v. Horn
...Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., supra; Ex parte Celtic Life Insurance Co., 834 So.2d 766 (Ala.2002); Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So.2d 723 (Ala.2002); Cavalier Manufacturing, Inc. v. Jackson, 823 So.2d 1237 (Ala.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 986, 122 S.Ct. 1536, 152 L.Ed.2d 464 (2......
-
Anderson v. Ashby
...Finance and Anderson rely upon Cavalier Mfg., Inc. v. Jackson, 823 So.2d 1237 (Ala.2001), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So.2d 723 (Ala.2002); and on Ex parte Thicklin, supra, as authority for their argument. In Cavalier Manufacturing and Ex parte Thicklin this Court str......
-
Hicks v. State (Ex parte Hicks)
...to the courts.’ See also Cavalier Mfg., Inc. v. Jackson, 823 So.2d 1237, 1248 (Ala.2001), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So.2d 723 (Ala.2002) (‘The Legislature is endowed with the exclusive domain to formulate public policy in Alabama, a domain upon which the judiciary s......
-
Creeping mandatory arbitration: is it just?
...clause imposed on employees unconscionable in part because it limited the amount of damages and front and back pay); Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 2002) (holding an arbitration clause unconscionable to the extent it foreclosed consumers' right to recover punitive (55.) See, e.g., ......
-
Fixing unfair contracts.
...2006). (67.) Anders v. Hometown Mortg. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 1024, 1029 (11th Cir. 2003). (68.) See id. at 1031-32; Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So. 2d 723, 734 (Ala. 2002). But see Sosa v. Paulos, 924 P.2d 357 (Utah 1996) (holding that a substantively unconscionable clause may render the entire......
-
CHAPTER 14.02. Drafting to Minimize Claims
...454 (Del. 2013).[39] 24 Williston on Contracts § 65:2 at 229 (2018); 11 Corbin on Contracts § 59:2 at 550 (2005).[40] Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So. 2d 723, 732 (Ala. 2002); Stark v. Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C., 381 F.3d 793, 800 (8th Cir....