Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Jones
Decision Date | 20 March 2018 |
Docket Number | WD 80809 |
Citation | 549 S.W.3d 14 |
Parties | FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Appellant, v. Tony L. JONES, Jr., Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas Byrne, for Appellant.
Jesse Barrett Rochman, for Respondent.
Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Karen King Mitchell, Judge
Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC appeals the judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court denying its motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. It presents six points on appeal. In the first three points, Ford Motor Credit claims the trial court erred in finding the parties' arbitration agreement unconscionable and unenforceable. In its last three points, Ford Motor Credit claims the trial court erred in waiving its right to seek arbitration. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
In March 2013, Tony Jones and Rebecca Wilson jointly executed a Kansas Vehicle Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement ("Retail Installment Contract") with Bob Allen Ford to document their purchase and financing of a 2013 Ford Focus. The Retail Installment Contract is a two page document. The following appears in all capital letters toward the bottom of the first page:
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE ARBITRATION PROVISION ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CONTRACT.
The following appears in its own box at the bottom of the second page of the Retail Installment Contract:
At the bottom of the first page, the Retail Installment Contract was assigned to Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford Motor Credit).
In August 2015, Ford Motor Credit filed a Petition in Cass County, Missouri for breach of contract. The Petition sought recovery of a deficiency due following Jones and Wilson’s failure to make payments to Ford Motor Credit as required by the contract and Ford Motor Credit’s subsequent repossession and sale of the vehicle. Ford Motor Credit sought a deficiency balance of $8290.90, plus interest from the date of the judgment, reasonable attorney fees, and costs as provided in the Retail Installment Contract.
In October 2015, a default judgment was entered against both Jones and Wilson in the Cass County case. Pursuant to Jones’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, and by an Agreed Order entered in September 2016, the judgment was set aside as to Jones only.1 Jones then filed a Motion and Order for Change of Venue of the Cass County case to Jackson County, Missouri. That motion was granted in December 2016.
On or about December 19, 2016, Jones filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and putative class action Counterclaim against Ford Motor Credit. Jones’s Counterclaim sought class certification and alleged, inter alia, that Ford Motor Credit failed to provide sufficient pre-sale and post-sale notices required by the UCC relating to the repossession and sale of the vehicle, entitling Jones (and putative class members) to damages. Jones also sought punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
Ford Motor Credit filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings on or about February 21, 2017. The motion came before the trial court for a hearing on April 11, 2017. The trial court denied Ford Motor Credit’s motion in a judgment dated May 22, 2017. First, it concluded the arbitration agreement unconscionable and unenforceable. The trial court found: (i) Ford Motor Credit had a superior bargaining position; (ii) the arbitration agreement was difficult to understand; and (iii) the arbitration agreement was one-sided. Second, the trial court concluded Ford Motor Credit waived its right to arbitrate. It found: (i) Ford Motor Credit knew of the right to arbitrate; (ii) Ford Motor Credit acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate; and (iii) Jones was prejudiced by Ford Motor Credit’s actions.
This appeal follows.
"The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed on appeal unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law." Bertocci v. Thoroughbred Ford, Inc. , 530 S.W.3d 543, 550 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). "Whether the trial court should have granted a motion to compel arbitration is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. " Id. "However, issues relating to the existence of an arbitration agreement are factual and require our deference to the trial court's findings."
Katz v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 533, 539 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011).
Ford Motor Credit’s first three points pertain to the trial court’s finding that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. It argues the trial court erred because: (1) the arbitrator is the one who decides whether the arbitration agreement is unconscionable; (2) mutuality is not required under state law or the FAA; and (3) the finding of unconscionability is not supported by substantial evidence.
Ford Motor Credit’s last three points pertain to the trial court’s finding that it waived the arbitration agreement. It argues that the trial court erred because: (1) the arbitrator is the one who decides if arbitration has been waived; (2) the FAA preempts state law with respect to prejudice as it relates to class actions; and (3) the FAA preempts state law with respect to prejudice as it relates to the petition to collect a deficiency.
For ease of discussion, these arguments as well as Jones’s assertions in his Respondent’s Brief are taken out of order.
Ford Motor Credit attached a copy of the Retail Installment Contract to its petition. That contract was between the dealership and Jones and Wilson. An assignment from the dealership to Ford Motor Credit appears at the bottom of the contract. Ford Motor Credit included with the petition an affidavit signed by Lorrie Rowe, an employee of Ford Motor Credit. The affidavit averred that the attached contract was a true and complete copy of the contract between the parties. Ford Motor Credit attached the same contract to its Motion to Compel. Ford Motor Credit subsequently filed an affidavit from Todd Kolchinsky, an employee of Ford Motor...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Wright
-
TD Auto Fin., LLC v. Bedrosian
...is unconscionable and thus not enforceable, as well as the issue of waiver by litigation. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit Co., LLC, v. Jones , 549 S.W.3d 14, 23-24 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). Like arbitration in general, the question of who decides these threshold arbitrability questions is a matter......
-
Car Credit, Inc. v. Pitts
... ... consumer claims nationwide[.]" Id ... [3] The cases were Ford Motor Credit ... Company, LLC v. Jones, 549 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. App. W.D ... 2018) and ... ...