York v. Dodgeland of Columbia, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 5169.,5169. |
| Citation | 406 S.C. 67,749 S.E.2d 139 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Melissa Anne YORK and Olga Joanne Cristy, Appellants, v. DODGELAND OF COLUMBIA, INC. and Jim Hudson Automotive Group, and Jim Hudson Superstore, a/k/a Jim Hudson Hyundai, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2011–199006. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Patrick E. Knie, of Patrick E. Knie, PA, of Spartanburg, and William Angus McKinnon and Susan Foxworth Campbell, both of McGowan Hood & Felder, LLC, of Rock Hill, for Appellants.
Rebecca Laffitte and John Michael Montgomery, both of Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, Claude E. Hardin, Jr., of Hardin Law Firm, LLC, and Steven W. Hamm and Jo Anne Wessinger Hill, both of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, all of Columbia, for Respondents.
Appellants argue the trial court erred in granting Respondents' motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Because every dispute was within the scope of at least one valid arbitration agreement, the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellants' suit and compelling arbitration.
This case involved two plaintiffs, Appellant Melissa York (York) and Appellant Olga Cristy (Cristy), with each alleging an automobile dealership charged illegal documentation fees. Notably, each plaintiff's respective claim arose from separate transactions occurring at separate dealerships; although York and Cristy filed suit together, York's two claims were against Dodgeland of Columbia, while Cristy's sole claim was against Jim Hudson Hyundai. Because the underlying case involved three vehicle purchases, one consumer loan, and two distinct sets of parties, as memorialized within four separate contracts, extensive factual review and analysis is necessitated.
On September 4, 2006, York and her husband, Jessie York (Husband), entered into two purchase agreements with Dodgeland of Columbia for two pre-owned vehicles, a Dodge Ram pickup and a Chevy Trailblazer. The purchase agreement (Buyers Order) for the Ram reflected York and Husband as “co-purchasers,” the agreed selling price, a trade allowance, a trade pay-off balance, $289 in “processing fees,” and tax, tag, and title fees. The record does not indicate whether the Yorks financed the $29,643 balance owed under this contract. At the top of this Buyers Order, in emboldened, capitalized letters, appeared the following language: “THIS BUYERS ORDER IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO S.C. CODE SECTION 15–48–10.” Additionally, at the bottom of this Buyers Order, was the following language:
IN CONSIDERATION FOR SELLER AGREEING TO SELL TO PURCHASER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED VEHICLE, PURCHASER AGREES THAT ANY AND ALL DISPUTES IN ANY WAY RELATED TO ANY NEGOTIATION OR POTENTIAL PURCHASE, FINANCING, OR ACTUAL PURCHASE OF ANY VEHICLE OR SERVICE FROM DEALER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT. BUYER UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT THIS TRANSACTION INVOLVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT NO ACTION IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY MAY BE FILED WITH THE ARBITRATOR AND THAT ARBITRATOR HAS NO AUTHORITY TO AWARD ANY RELIEF TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ABOVE NAMED PURCHASER OR SELLER AND THAT ARBITRATOR SHALL DECIDE ALL ISSUES OF ARBITRABILITY.
While this document indicated that additional terms existed on the “reverse side hereof,” that portion of the document is not part of the Record on Appeal.
The Buyers Order for the Chevy Trailblazer transaction reflected York and Husband as “co-purchasers,” the agreed selling price, $289 in “processing fees,” and tax, tag, and title fees. The record does not indicate whether the Yorks financed the $18,143 balance owed under this contract. This contract incorporated the same language found within the Buyers Order for the Ram pickup, although the arbitration notice header was underlined and in a bigger font. The reverse side of this document is not part of the Record on Appeal.
We again note that no relationship existed between York and Cristy, and that Respondent Jim Hudson Hyundai was unaffiliated with Respondent Dodgeland. Thus, the parties and conduct associated with the York/Dodgeland transactions were distinct from those involved in the Cristy/Jim Hudson Hyundai transaction.
On March 28, 2008, Cristy purchased a new 2008 Hyundai Tucson from Jim Hudson Hyundai. Cristy signed two contracts: (1) a Buyers Order memorializing the terms of the sale of the vehicle by Jim Hudson Hyundai to Cristy; and (2) a Retail Installment Contract (Installment Contract) memorializing, inter alia, Cristy's debt and repayment obligations to BB & T, and BB & T's related obligation to pay the funded loan's proceeds to Jim Hudson Hyundai.
As to the Buyers Order, it reflected Cristy as the customer, the agreed selling price and trade allowance, as well as the pay-off balance of the trade-in, a manufacturer rebate, a $289 “processing fee,” and tax, tag, and title fees. Under this agreement, Cristy owed the dealership $18,013. At the very top of this Buyers Order, in emboldened, capitalized, and underlined letters, appeared the following language:
THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, AND IF THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE, THEN THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT.
Additionally, at the very bottom of this Buyers Order, but directly above Cristy's signature, was the following language:
? SEE ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON OPPOSITE PAGE ?
The reverse side of this Buyers Order incorporated provisions further defining the scope and terms of arbitration, including remedy and claim type limitations.
While Cristy's Buyers Order evidenced the actual sale and purchase of the vehicle, her Installment Contract memorialized the terms of the financing arrangement ( i.e., the BB & T loan) procured to satisfy the balance owed under the aforementioned Buyers Order. In particular, the Installment Contract outlined, among other things, Cristy's and BB & T's, eventually mutual, financial obligations, such as: amount financed; to whom the funded loan proceeds should be remitted; repayment period and monthly payment amounts; applicable interest rates, fees, and finance charges; and other loan related “terms” ( i.e., rights and restrictions). Pursuant to this agreement, Cristy was the buyer and debtor, the 2008 Hyundai was the collateral, BB & T was the creditor, lienholder, and Assignee, and Jim Hudson Hyundai was the seller, recipient of the funded loan proceeds, and assignor. Notably, the Installment Contract read, in pertinent part, as follows:
[A]ny claim or dispute ... between you and us or our agents ... that arises out of or relates to your credit application, this Contract or any resulting transaction ... is to be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.... The Federal Arbitration Act ... governs [and] not any state [arbitration] law.
This contract also included provisions further defining the scope and terms of arbitration, including remedy and claim type limitations.
York and Cristy filed a single suit, on June 25, 2010, against Dodgeland of Columbia, Jim Hudson Automotive Group, and Jim Hudson Superstore, a/k/a Jim Hudson Hyundai.1 York and Cristy alleged misleading business practices culminated in the charging of illegal administration fees, which artificially raised the agreed purchase prices and, thereby, impermissibly increased the dealers' profits. The complaint also stated that it was filed “for the benefit of all others.” 2
Dodgeland and Jim Hudson Hyundai filed motions to dismiss and to compel Arbitration, which the trial court granted. The trial court denied Appellants' Rule 59(e) motion and this appeal followed.
1. Did the trial court err in finding valid any of the arbitration agreements or any provisions or subparts, thereof?
2. Did the trial court err in finding Appellants' claims were within a valid arbitration agreement's scope?
3. Did the trial court err in denying arbitration-related discovery?
Whether a claim is subject to arbitration is an issue for judicial determination. Partain v. Upstate Auto. Grp., 386 S.C. 488, 491, 689 S.E.2d 602, 603 (2010). While this determination by a trial court is reviewed de novo, an appellate court will not reverse this finding if it is reasonably supported by the evidence. Id.
Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists is a matter for judicial determination. Partain, 386 S.C. at 491, 689 S.E.2d at 603;see Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14, 23–24, 644 S.E.2d 663, 668 (2007) (). In making this determination, trial courts consider “general contract defenses” to ensure a meeting of the minds to arbitrate existed, and that such an agreement was not the result of “fraud, duress, [or] unconscionability.” Zabinski v. Bright Acres Assocs., 346 S.C. 580, 593, 553 S.E.2d 110, 116 (2001).
The trial court did not err in finding York, as well as Cristy, was bound by a valid arbitration agreement because each Appellant entered into an arbitration agreement that (A) complied with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); (B) evidenced intent to arbitrate; (C) was not unconscionable; and (D) was not void as against public policy.
Pursuant to Section 2 of the FAA, a “written provision in any ... contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2013). Because ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...Cir.2012) ; Gainesville Health Care Ctr. , 857 So.2d at 284 ; Wisconsin Auto , 714 N.W.2d at 165 ; York v. Dodgeland of Columbia, Inc. , 406 S.C. 67, 749 S.E.2d 139, 148 (S.C.Ct.App.2013) ; Mullis v. Speight Seed Farms, Inc. , 234 Ga.App. 27, 505 S.E.2d 818, 820 (1998). In Washington and Ka......
- Lawing v. Trinity Mfg., Inc.
- Lawing v. Univar, USA, Inc.
-
Berry v. Spang
...the parties "must still have agreed, as a matter of general state contract law, to arbitrate." See York v. Dodgeland of Columbia, Inc. , 406 S.C. 67, 80, 749 S.E.2d 139, 145 (Ct. App. 2013).Appellants rely upon Stokes v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. , 351 S.C. 606, 610, 571 S.E.2d 711, 7......