Family Sec. Credit Union v. Etheredge
Decision Date | 19 May 2017 |
Docket Number | 1151002,1151007,1151004,1151005,1151001,1151003,1151006,1151000 |
Citation | 238 So.3d 35 |
Parties | FAMILY SECURITY CREDIT UNION v. Richard W. ETHEREDGE Family Security Credit Union v. Kendrick M. Nettles Family Security Credit Union v. Wanda J. Pezent Family Security Credit Union v. David Moore Family Security Credit Union v. Martha H. Dunagan Family Security Credit Union v. Gene McClure Family Security Credit Union v. Kayla N. Williams Family Security Credit Union v. Dana Dunn and Timothy Dunn |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gerald P. Gillespy of Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham; and Michael D. Strasavich of Burr & Forman LLP, Mobile, for appellant.
Joseph C. McCorquodale III of McCorquodale Law Firm, Jackson, for appellees.
Family Security Credit Union ("FSCU") appeals the trial court's denial of its motions to compel arbitration in eight separate but closely related cases. We reverse and remand.
Action Auto Sales ("Action Auto") is a car-financing group that financed the vehicle inventory of Pine City Auto ("Pine City"), a used-car dealership. Action Auto held the titles to the vehicles in the inventory it financed and released a title only when a vehicle was sold and Pine City paid off a proportional amount of the inventory financing. Pine City eventually went out of business without paying off the inventory financing on some of the vehicles it had sold. Action Auto sued Pine City and the purchasers of eight vehicles who had purchased vehicles from Pine City and financed those purchases through FSCU.1 Action Auto sought possession of the vehicles and money damages. The purchasers each filed counterclaims and cross-claims against Action Auto and Pine City and third-party claims against FSCU, alleging negligence, wantonness, and conspiracy. The purchasers' third-party claims against FSCU are based on FSCU's alleged failure to perfect its security interest in the vehicles before financing the purchasers of the vehicles. FSCU moved for each of those third-party claims to be submitted to arbitration, and, to support its motions, FSCU attached a copy of a "Retail Installment Sale Contract" and a "Dealer's Assignment and Buyer's Consent to Assignment" that each purchaser had executed when he or she purchased the vehicle. The purchasers opposed the motions to compel arbitration, but they did not submit any evidence. After hearing oral arguments, the trial court denied all eight motions to compel arbitration. FSCU filed these eight appeals, which this Court consolidated for the purpose of issuing one opinion.
As part of the purchase of the vehicle, each purchaser executed a "Retail Installment Sale Contract" with Pine City and a "Dealer's Assignment and Buyer's Consent to Assignment," which assigned the sale contract to FSCU. The "Dealer's Assignment and Buyer's Consent to Assignment" contained the following arbitration provision immediately above the signature lines:
(Capitalization in original.)
In denying FSCU's motions to compel arbitration, the trial court held that "FSCU's promise to arbitrate is merely illusory and does not serve as valid consideration to support the arbitration agreement" because "the arbitration clause does not preclude FSCU from pursuing several alternative avenues of relief against the borrower, including the filing of a judicial lawsuit," but "requires that borrowers ... settle ‘[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement’ through binding arbitration."
Further, the trial court held that the arbitration provision was unconscionable. Specifically, the court stated:
(Citations omitted.)
[A]fter a motion to compel arbitration has been made and supported, the burden is on the non-movant to present evidence that the supposed arbitration agreement is not valid or does not apply to the dispute in question." Jim Burke Automotive, Inc. v. Beavers, 674 So.2d 1260, 1265 n.1 (Ala. 1995) ( ).’ "
Elizabeth Homes, L.L.C. v. Gantt, 882 So.2d 313, 315 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Fleetwood Enters., Inc. v. Bruno, 784 So.2d 277, 280 (Ala. 2000) ).
It is undisputed that FSCU moved to compel arbitration and supported its motions with contracts that were executed by the purchasers and that each contract contained the above-quoted arbitration provision. It was also undisputed that the contracts evidenced a transaction affecting interstate commerce. Thus, the burden shifted to the purchasers to present evidence that the arbitration agreements were not valid or that they did not apply to the disputes in question. The purchasers did not present any additional evidence. They presented only argument. Therefore, unless on its face the arbitration provision is not valid or does not apply to the dispute in question, the trial court's decision to deny the motions to compel arbitration was erroneous.
The trial court held that the arbitration provision in each contract is unconscionable on its face. Concerning unconscionability, this Court has stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial