United Credit Corp., et al. v. Hubbard
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02727-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-09-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Arbitration - Duty to read - Unconscionability Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2003 Appealed from: Simpson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: Denied a motion to compel arbitration. Case Number: 2003-003 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | UNITED CREDIT CORPORATION AND UNITED CREDIT CORPORATION OF MAGEE |
ROBERT E. SANDERS |
||
| Appellee: | FRANCES HUBBARD | SUZANNE GRIGGINS KEYS |
|
|
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 - Duty to read - Unconscionability |
| Summary of the Facts: | Frances Hubbard borrowed money from United Credit Corporation of Magee on two separate occasions. Both loans contained the same arbitration agreement providing that Hubbard would relinquish her right to a jury trial if a dispute arose involving either loan. Hubbard filed suit against United Credit Corporation alleging several causes of action. United Credit Corporation of Magee filed a motion to intervene as defendant and for order compelling arbitration. The court allowed the intervention of UCCM as the proper defendant in the suit but denied the motion to compel arbitration. UCCM appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | UCCM argues that the court erred in finding that the defendants have not made an adequate showing that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly agreed to waive her rights and agree to arbitration. Generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening. In the contract at issue, the arbitration clause immediately preceded the signature line in bold capital font. There was no hidden text in the agreement, and Hubbard was not deceived by the language of the actual document that she signed. It is essentially Hubbard’s duty to read and understand any document she signs. Hubbard argues that UCCM waived its right to arbitration by participating in discovery and that the arbitration clause contained in the loan agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since it provided language that was conspicuous. The arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable because both parties were guaranteed the same rights by the agreement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
