Court rules arbitration provision null and void

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tackling an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that an arbitration provision in a loan agreement from a payday loan provider is null and void on the grounds of impossibility because the arbitrator named in the document is no longer available.

In Geneva-Roth Capital, Inc., et al. v. Akeala Edwards, No. 49A02-1101-PL-43, Akeala Edwards filed a lawsuit, on her behalf and a purported class, against LoanPoint USA claiming the loan agreement she entered into with the company violated the Indiana Consumer Credit Code’s Small Loans Act. She filled out an online application for a $300 loan, and part of the agreement included an arbitration provision that said the parties must arbitrate any disputes and that National Arbitration Forum would handle the disputes. Over the course of 90 days, LoanPoint USA deducted more than $700 in finance charges from Edwards’ account and only applied $23 to her original loan balance.

LoanPoint USA moved to stay the proceedings and compel Edwards to arbitrate her claim on an individual basis; Edwards argued since NAF was no longer available to arbitrate – the company was ordered by a Minnesota state court to not participate in any disputes after July 2009 based on fraud allegations filed by the Minnesota attorney general – the arbitration portion is invalid and unenforceable. The trial court concluded that the arbitration provision was null and void as impossible to perform since NAF is no longer available to serve in such a capacity. The trial court also found it could not appoint a replacement arbitrator pursuant to 9 U.S.C.A. Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

The appellate court looked to several jurisdictions – which have reached opposite results – to decide whether an arbitration agreement fails due to impossibility if the chosen forum cannot serve as arbitrator or if the trial court is obliged to appoint a substitute arbitrator pursuant to Section 5. The COA agreed with the rulings in Rivera v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs. Inc., (259 P.3d 803 N.M. 2011), and Ranzy v. Tijernina, 393 F. App’x 174 (5th Cir. 2010), which found similar provisions to be null because they would be impossible to perform since the named arbitrator no longer could perform the duty.

“Having concluded that the NAF as the arbitral forum was integral to the arbitration agreement, and given that the NAF is no longer available to conduct consumer arbitrations, the arbitration provision is null and void on grounds of impossibility. Section 5 does not save the arbitration provision and cannot be used as a mechanism to appoint a substitute arbitrator. The trial court did not err in denying LoanPoint USA’s motion to compel arbitration,” wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?