Speedee Cash of Mis. V. Williams


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-IA-02076-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-01-2005
Opinion Author: Waller, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful repossession - Arbitration agreement
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.,
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-23-2004
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Winston Kidd
Disposition: Denied motion to compel arbitration
Case Number: 251-04-269CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: SPEEDEE CASH OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. d/b/a SPEEDEE CASH OF PEARL




NEVILLE H. BOSCHERT, NICHOLAS H. MANLEY



 

Appellee: CHARLES WILLIAMS a/k/a CHARLIE WILLIAMS MICHAEL M. LOUVIER, LOUIS J. GUICHET, III  

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: Wrongful repossession - Arbitration agreement

Summary of the Facts: Charles Williams Charlie Williams filed suit against Speedee Cash of Mississippi, Inc. d/b/a Speedee Cash of Pearl for wrongfully repossessing Williams’ Cadillac El Dorado. He also alleges causes of action for conversion, trespass, loss of income, and damage to business reputation, and demanded actual and punitive damages. Speedee Cash raised the affirmative defense of arbitration and alleged that Williams breached the contract. It also filed a motion to stay discovery pending arbitration, and a motion to compel arbitration. The lower court summarily denied Speedee Cash’s motion to compel arbitration, and the Supreme Court granted Speedee Cash’s petition to bring this interlocutory appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: All of Williams’ claims fall under the arbitration agreement, which covers all claims pertaining in any way to any dwelling, transaction, or activities between the parties, including the arbitrability of any claim, regardless of whether they are based upon contract, tort, or otherwise and regardless of whether they are assertable at law, in equity or otherwise. There is no dispute that Williams signed the document containing the arbitration agreement. While Williams makes a claim of unconscionability on appeal, this issue was never raised before the trial court. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court