Wells Fargo Auto Finance Inc v. Wright
| Decision Date | 25 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. A10A0836.,A10A0836. |
| Citation | 698 S.E.2d 17,304 Ga.App. 621 |
| Parties | WELLS FARGO AUTO FINANCE, INC.v.WRIGHT. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
304 Ga.App. 621
698 S.E.2d 17
WELLS FARGO AUTO FINANCE, INC.
v.
WRIGHT.
No. A10A0836.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
June 25, 2010.
T. Michael Flinn, Carrollton, for appellee.
MIKELL, Judge.
Following the grant of its application for interlocutory appeal, Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc., appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. Because Gary Lee Wright executed an arbitration agreement that mandated the arbitration of his claim, we reverse the trial court's ruling.
The question of arbitrability, i.e., whether an agreement creates a duty for the parties to arbitrate the particular grievance, is undeniably an issue for judicial determination. The standard of review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to compel arbitration is whether the trial court was correct as a matter of law. The construction of an arbitration agreement, like any other contract, presents a question of law, which is subject to de novo review.1
The record shows that appellee Gary Lee Wright purchased a used 2003 GMC Yukon from Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc., on or about February 22, 2006. Contemporaneously with the execution of the retail purchase contract, Wright executed a Retail Installment Contract (the “Contract”) and an Arbitration Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Bill Heard. The Contract was assigned to Wells Fargo.
Approximately two years later, Wright discovered that the vehicle had been involved in an accident before he purchased it and consequently attempted to rescind his contract. Wells Fargo refused, and Wright filed the instant action, alleging that Wells Fargo had engaged in deceptive business practices by requiring Wright to continue to pay for the vehicle. Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action and to compel arbitration, which the trial court summarily denied. The trial court issued a certificate of immediate review, and we granted the interlocutory appeal.
1. In its sole enumeration of error, Wells Fargo argues that the trial court erred when it denied its motion to compel. We agree and reverse.
The Agreement at issue provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Buyer/Lessee and Seller/Lessor agree that all claims, demands, disputes, or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise between them concerning any of the negotiations leading to the sale, lease or financing of the vehicle, terms and provision of the sale, lease or financial agreement, arrangements for financing, purchase of insurance, purchase of extended warranties or service contracts, the performance or condition of the vehicle or any other aspects of the vehicle and its sale, lease or financing shall be settled by binding arbitration conducted pursuant to the provision of 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. [the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)] and according to the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
Wright argues that his claim arises under the Fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TD Auto Fin. LLC v. Reynolds
...agreement in Purchase Agreement where executed with other purchase documentation contemporaneously); Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. v. Wright , 304 Ga.App. 621, 698 S.E.2d 17, 19 (2010) (finding stand-alone arbitration agreement valid where "retail sales contract, installment contract, and ......
-
Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank
...a question of law, which is subject to de novo review.” (Footnote omitted; emphasis supplied.) Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. v. Wright, 304 Ga.App. 621, 621, 698 S.E.2d 17 (2010). The Supreme Court of Georgia has determined that “[t]he [C]ourt will take the contract by its four corners, an......
-
Penso Holdings, Inc. v. Cleveland
...70 (6th ed.1991).15 Bryan County v. Yates Paving & Grading Co., 281 Ga. 361, 363, 638 S.E.2d 302 (2006) (citation omitted).16 304 Ga.App. 621, 698 S.E.2d 17 (2010).17 Id. at 622(1), 698 S.E.2d 17 (emphasis supplied).18 Id. at 621, 623(1), 698 S.E.2d 17.19 OCGA § 13–2–2(2).20 Harkins v. CA 1......
-
Walker v. Hyundai Capital Am., Inc.
...Finance, Inc. v. Wright, the Georgia3 Court of Appeals was presented with a factual scenario strikingly similar to this case. 304 Ga. App. 621, 698 S.E.2d 17 (2010). Mr. Wright purchased a vehicle from a local Chevrolet dealer. Id. at 621, 698 S.E.2d at 18. As part of the transaction, Mr. W......