ILNews

COA: arbitration provision null and void

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of a payday loan company’s motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed by a customer. The COA relied on a nearly identical case involving the same plaintiff in which another appellate panel found that since the arbitrator named in the agreement is no longer available, the arbitration provision is null and void on grounds of impossibility.

In Apex 1 Processing, Inc. v. Akeala Edwards, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, No. 49A05-1103-PL-85, Akeala Edwards filed a class-action lawsuit against Apex 1 Processing Inc., alleging it engaged in unfair trade practices. She got a payday loan through Apex’s company doing business as Paycheck Today, and she was charged $360 in finance charges on her $300 loan. The suit has not yet been certified as a class action.

Apex sought to compel Edwards to arbitrate her claim individually based on a provision in the loan agreement. The National Arbitration Forum was named as the arbitrator to be used, but the NAF has been ordered to not participate in any arbitration of consumer disputes after July 2009 based on a suit filed by the Minnesota attorney general.

This suit is similar to one Edwards filed against Geneva-Roth Capital Inc. An appellate panel in November found that the arbitration provision in that suit was null and void on the grounds of impossibility because NAF is not longer available to arbitrate. At the time, the issue was one of first impression in Indiana. In Geneva-Roth Capital v. Edwards, No. 49A02-1101-PL-43, the COA also found that 9 U.S.C.A. Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act does not oblige the trial court to appoint a substitute arbitrator.

“The language of the Apex contract, like that in the Geneva-Roth contract, provides claims ‘shall be resolved by binding . . . arbitration by and under the Code of Procedure of [NAF],’” wrote Judge Melissa May. “Thus, the identification of NAF as the arbitrator was integral to the contract, and the arbitration provision fails.”

The panel in the instant case adopted the reasoning in Geneva-Roth and affirmed the denial of Apex 1’s motion to compel arbitration.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT