Walther v. Sovereign Bank
Citation | 386 Md. 412,872 A.2d 735 |
Decision Date | 20 April 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 61,61 |
Parties | David G. WALTHER, et ux. v. SOVEREIGN BANK. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
E. David Hoskins (the Law Office of E. David Hoskins, L.L.C., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for petitioners.
James W. Bentz (Thomas L. Allen, Roy W. Arnold and John M. McIntyre of Reed, Smith, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, PA; Gerald J. Gaeng and Andrew H. Baida of Rosenberg, Martin, Funk & Greenberg, L.L.P., Baltimore, MD), all on brief, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and GREENE, JJ.
This case involves the enforceability of an arbitration agreement entered into as part of a second mortgage loan contract between David and Tamera Walther, petitioners, and Sovereign Bank, the assignee of the loan contract and respondent in the case at bar.
Petitioners present two questions for our review, which we rephrase for the sake of clarity as follows:
For the reasons discussed herein, we hold that the arbitration clause at issue is not unconscionable but is part of an enforceable agreement validly entered into by petitioners for the purpose of securing a second mortgage loan. We also hold that Sovereign Bank's action of seeking dismissal on the merits did not amount to a waiver of its right to arbitrate petitioners' claims against it.
On or about February 17, 1998, petitioners obtained a secondary mortgage loan1 (the "Mortgage Loan") from an entity known as Empire Funding Corporation ("Empire"). The Mortgage Loan principal was $33,000.00 and it was secured by a lien on petitioners' residence. Under the terms of the Mortgage Loan agreement, petitioners were required to pay: a flood certificate fee of $12.00; an underwriting fee of $125.00; a settlement fee of $200.00; a title binder fee of $125.00; a document preparation fee of $125.00; an administrative fee of $230.00; a credit fee of $20.00; a courier fee of $30.00; and a mortgage broker fee of $1,980.00. As part of the Mortgage Loan transaction, petitioners signed a "Direct Loan Note & Truth in Lending Disclosure" (the "Disclosure Agreement"), which contained, inter alia, an agreement to arbitrate. That specific part of the Disclosure Agreement provided:
[Footnote added.]
At some time after the loan documents were signed, Empire assigned the note to its current holder and respondent in the case at bar, Sovereign Bank.
On December 23, 2002, petitioners filed a "Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial" in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, alleging that Empire had violated the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (the "SMLL"), Md. Code , §§ 12-401 et seq. of the Commercial Law Article, by charging petitioners $2,847.00 in illegal fees.3 Petitioners' "prayer for relief" included a "refund" of "the amount of all interest and illegal fees already paid on the notes," asserting that they were entitled to a $2,847.00 refund, plus any interest that they had paid to that date, an amount they claimed to be "$22,341.50 plus an additional $386.39 per month from the date of filing this Complaint until the date Judgment is entered." As stated, petitioners sought class-action status from the circuit court, believing there to be "hundreds of members" that had similarly been aggrieved by "predatory lending practices" relating to secondary mortgage loans sold or assigned to Sovereign Bank.
On March 10, 2003, Sovereign Bank responded to petitioners' complaint by filing in the circuit court a "Petition to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss or to Stay Proceedings." In its petition and supporting memorandum, Sovereign Bank stressed the fact that the Disclosure Agreement contained the aforementioned arbitration clause, which it argued made petitioners' claims subject to mandatory arbitration. Sovereign Bank also pointed out in its memorandum in support of its petition that petitioners explicitly had waived both their right to a class-action adjudication and their right to a jury trial by their action of signing the Disclosure Agreement.
On March 27, 2003, petitioners filed a memorandum in opposition to Sovereign Bank's petition and motion. In an affidavit filed with the memorandum, Mr. Walther claimed, inter alia, that he did not know that the Mortgage Loan included the charges at issue and that he "had no opportunity to review the" Disclosure Agreement "beyond a cursory perusal" before signing it, but that, "[h]ad I realized how [the arbitration clause] effected [sic] my rights to a jury trial and to bring any future claim relating to the loan as part of a class action, I would not have signed the document" (alteration added). Mr. Walther explained that
On April 2, 2003, the circuit court entered an order granting Sovereign Bank's petition to enforce arbitration, providing that "the claim of [petitioners] against defendant Sovereign Bank is referred to arbitration in accordance with the loan agreement ..." (alteration added).4 Petitioners thereafter timely appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals.
On May 26, 2004, the intermediate appellate court, in an unreported decision, found that "[t]he major issue to be decided in this case is whether an arbitration clause contained in a `Direct Loan Note & Truth in Lending Disclosure' agreement between a lender and the appellants, David and Tamera Walther, is unconscionable." In holding that the arbitration clause was not unconscionable, the Court of Special Appeals stated that petitioners were "legally responsible for reading the contents of any loan they signed," that the arbitration clause was "not completely one-sided" in favor of Sovereign Bank, the arbitration clause's limitation as to class action proceedings was valid and enforceable, the arbitration clause's fee arrangement was not likely to be prohibitively expensive, the waiver of a jury trial by petitioners was valid and enforceable, and that Sovereign Bank had never waived its right to arbitrate because of any filing it had made in the circuit court. Petitioners thereafter petitioned this Court for Writ of Certiorari. On August 25, 2004, we granted the petition. Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 382 Md. 688, 856 A.2d 724 (2004).
A trial court's order to compel arbitration constitutes a final and appealable judgment. See Horsey v. Horsey, 329 Md. 392, 403, 620 A.2d 305, 310-11 (1993)
( ); see also Litton Bionetics v. Glen Constr. Co., 292 Md. 34, 437 A.2d 208 (1981).
Our role in reviewing the trial court's order to compel arbitration "`extends only to a determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.'" Allstate Ins. Co. v. Stinebaugh, 374 Md. 631, 645, 824 A.2d 87, 95 (2003) (quoting Holmes v. Coverall North America, Inc., 336 Md. 534, 546, 649 A.2d 365, 370-71 (1994)). The trial court's conclusion as to whether a particular dispute is subject to arbitration is a conclusion of law, which we review de novo. See Wells v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., 363 Md. 232, 250, 768 A.2d 620, 629-30 (2001)
(...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Park Plus, Inc. v. Palisades of Towson, LLC
...subject to the limitations period in CJ § 5-101. Legal questions of this kind are reviewed without deference. Walther v. Sovereign Bank , 386 Md. 412, 422, 872 A.2d 735 (2005).Law and EquityIn a bygone era, civil cases in Maryland were adjudicated in either a court of law or a court of equi......
-
Shih Ping Li v. Tzu Lee
...Md.App. 526, 598, 807 A.2d 651 (2002).A. “Fairness of the Agreements: Substantive Unconscionability” The Court of Appeals stated in Walther v. Sovereign Bank that in determining if substantive unconscionability exists, “we must consider whether the terms in the [contract] are so one-sided a......
-
State v. Philip Morris, Inc.
...242, 768 A.2d 620 (2001) (“we conclude that Maryland procedural law ... is not preempted by the FAA”)); accord Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 386 Md. 412, 423, 872 A.2d 735 (2005) (“In enforcing ... the FAA, however, state courts are not bound by the federal procedural provisions of the FAA .........
-
Berent v. CMH Homes, Inc.
...would protect both parties. See, e.g., Torrance v. Aames Funding Corp., 242 F.Supp.2d 862, 872 (D.Or.2002) ; Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 386 Md. 412, 872 A.2d 735, 749 (2005). Thus, they argue that the exception for judicial foreclosure proceedings is necessary to protect their security inte......