Adams v. Greenpoint Credit, LLC, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02415-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-02415-SCT ; 2004-CT-02415-SCT ; 2004-CA-02415-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-24-2006 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed & Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Arbitration agreement - Claims subject to agreement Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): SOUTHWICK AND ROBERTS, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Motion to Compel Arbitration Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-01-2004 Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMS WERE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION. Case Number: CV-02-509-BM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | EDDIE ADAMS AND BETH BROWN |
W. HOWARD GUNN |
||
| Appellee: | GREENPOINT CREDIT, LLC AND SECURITY BANK OF AMORY | C. MICHAEL MALSKI, JEFFREY DALE RAWLINGS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Arbitration agreement - Claims subject to agreement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eddie Adams and his wife signed a contract with Greenpoint Credit, LLC and Security Bank of Amory to finance their mobile home. The contract contained an arbitration clause. Adams later opened a joint checking account with his daughter, Beth Brown, at Greenpoint. Greenpoint issued a draft on this checking account to make a payment on the mobile home. Adams and Brown sued Greenpoint claiming that the draft was unauthorized. The court compelled the parties to submit to arbitration. Adams and Brown appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Courts apply a two-pronged inquiry when asked to compel arbitration. The first step is to determine whether there is a valid arbitration agreement. The second step is to determine whether the parties’ dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Adams does not dispute the validity of the arbitration agreement but argues that the agreement does not apply to the facts of the present case because he did not intend for the contract to cover tort claims. However, courts have found that parties to arbitration agreements cannot avoid them by casting their claims in tort, rather than contract. But for Adams’ contract with Greenpoint, the dispute over the allegedly unlawful draft of a payment due under the contract would not have arisen. The torts alleged by Adams arise from the allegedly unauthorized draft of a payment due under a contract that called for arbitration. With regard to whether Brown’s claims are subject to arbitration, there is no proof in the record that Brown owned the mobile home jointly with Adams, lived in the mobile home, or benefitted from the financing agreement in any way. Therefore, Brown’s claims are not subject to arbitration. Adams and Brown have both set forth claims against Greenpoint alleging fraud, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and defamation. These claims arise out of the same set of operative facts. Therefore, allowing Brown to litigate her claims while Adams’ claims are subject to arbitration would impair Greenpoint’s right to arbitrate. Brown’s claims are stayed until the arbitration proceedings with respect to Adams’ claims are completed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
