Roy S. Todd v. Discover Bank, Issuer of Discover Card

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/04/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110199 Roy S. Todd v. D i s c o v e r Bank, I s s u e r o f D i s c o v e r Card Appeal from Shelby C i r c u i t (CV-10-703) Court MOORE, J u d g e . Roy S. Todd a p p e a l s favor of "Discover f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n Bank, Issuer ("Discover"), by t h e Shelby C i r c u i t Court of Discover ("the t r i a l Card" court"). 2110199 On S e p t e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 1 0 , D i s c o v e r Todd, claiming contract, that open Todd account owed and f i l e d a complaint i t $11,721.03 account stated "by v i r t u e plus p u r s u a n t t o the terms o f the c o n t r a c t , " p l u s against of interest attorney fees. On November 9, 2010, Todd, a p p e a r i n g p r o s e , f i l e d a m o t i o n t o dismiss the complaint, a s s e r t i n g t h a t Todd h a d s e n t a w r i t t e n request to Discover's counsel on July p r o o f o f t h e d e b t and t h a t D i s c o v e r request. Todd f i l e d a document "Sworn D e n i a l , " w h i c h was signed 29, 2010, requesting had not responded t o h i s i n the t r i a l court entitled b y Todd and n o t a r i z e d ; t h a t document s t a t e d : " I deny t h a t t h i s i s my d e b t and i f i t i s my debt, I deny t h a t valid debt, I i t is still deny [ a ] v a l i d d e b t and i f i t i s a t h e amount sued $ 1 1 , 7 2 1 . 0 3 i s t h e c o r r e c t amount." f o r i n t h e amount of A l s o on November 9, 2010, Todd f i l e d an answer d e n y i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e c o m p l a i n t and a s s e r t i n g a number o f a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s . On November summary j u d g m e n t . 30, 2010, Discover filed Discovery attached t o t h a t m o t i o n what i t a s s e r t s i s Todd's "Cardmember A g r e e m e n t " ; We 1 1 a motion for a itemized statements n o t e t h a t t h e "Cardmember A g r e e m e n t " i s n o t s i g n e d Todd. 2 by 2110199 o f Todd's a c c o u n t w i t h D i s c o v e r ; an a f f i d a v i t f r o m D i s c o v e r ' s a t t o r n e y s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e amount o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s s o u g h t by D i s c o v e r ; and t h e a f f i d a v i t o f an a c c o u n t servicing agent of D i s c o v e r account. dismiss Discover on asserted, verification Discover his filed December among verifying a 16, 2010. other o f Todd's response debt on the records to In that things, Todd's Agreement" that i t or about through o f Todd's motion response, use to Discover had August a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t Todd h a d a g r e e d "Cardmember manager f o r t h e provided 23, 2010. t o the terms of of his Discover account. On January 6, 2011, a h e a r i n g was held on Discover's summary-judgment m o t i o n and Todd's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . date, i n response t o Todd's a r g u m e n t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l l o w e d Todd 30 a d d i t i o n a l d a y s t o p r o v i d e t h e t r i a l that h i s account Discover On t h a t had been t r a n s f e r r e d or no l o n g e r owned t h e a c c o u n t . court with sold On J a n u a r y and proof that 24, 2 0 1 1 , Todd f i l e d a m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g an e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e t o c o n d u c t discovery; the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on A p r i l 8, 2011, s e t t i n g a h e a r i n g on D i s c o v e r ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n on May 12, 2011. At t h a t h e a r i n g , i n response 3 t o Todd's a r g u m e n t s , 2110199 the trial court gave Todd an some e v i d e n c e t h a t D i s c o v e r court also evidence, On stated that, a d d i t i o n a l 20 had i f days t o s o l d h i s account. Todd failed May requesting 24, 2011, pending the Todd filed private trial court to a "motion such granted. for contractual stay In that entered into a a g r e e m e n t p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h b o t h p a r t i e s had agreed a l l disputes arbitration; arising Todd a t t a c h e d b e t w e e n them w o u l d be the settled the t r i a l c o u r t t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n . The requested t r i a l court denied Todd's m o t i o n f o r a s t a y and t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n on June after a hearing. to dismiss he was a 2 On J u l y 18, f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l resident of by "Cardmember A g r e e m e n t , " w h i c h c o n t a i n s an a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n , as an e x h i b i t and 2011, of arbitration," compel a r b i t r a t i o n . m o t i o n , Todd a s s e r t e d t h a t he and D i s c o v e r had that trial provide to The D i s c o v e r ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n w o u l d be proceedings written provide Jefferson 2011, Todd f i l e d a m o t i o n jurisdiction, County 23, asserting that rather than Shelby Although there i s no entry i n the State Judicial Information System r e g a r d i n g the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of Todd's m o t i o n f o r a s t a y and t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n and a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s no t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g on t h a t m o t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on June 23, 2011. We i n t e r p r e t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s J u l y 20, 2011, j u d g m e n t as an i m p l i c i t d e n i a l o f Todd's m o t i o n . 2 4 2110199 County and t h a t the t r i a l court therefore lacked personal j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h i m ; he a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t S h e l b y C o u n t y was an i m p r o p e r venue f o r t h e a c t i o n . dismiss, Todd s u b m i t t e d Attached his affidavit, t o t h a t motion t o w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t he r e s i d e d i n Birmingham, which i s i n J e f f e r s o n County, b u t t h a t he d i d r e c e i v e m a i l a t an a d d r e s s i n A l a b a s t e r , w h i c h i s i n S h e l b y C o u n t y , "as a c o n v e n i e n c e . " On July 20, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l judgment i n f a v o r o f D i s c o v e r , court entered a summary which s t a t e d : " T h i s m a t t e r came b e f o r e t h e c o u r t on t h e 2 3 r d day o f J u n e , 2010, on P l a i n t i f f D i s c o v e r Bank, issuer of Discover Card's Motion f o r Summary Judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 6 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f s a i d m o t i o n and t h e a c c o m p a n y i n g p r o o f , i t i s t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t t h a t such i s w e l l taken, and t h e r e appearing t o be no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t r e m a i n i n g i n dispute and t h a t [ D i s c o v e r ] b e i n g entitled to j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , i t i s ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED t h a t [ D i s c o v e r ' s ] M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment i s h e r e b y g r a n t e d , a n d j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y entered i n favor of [Discover] and against D e f e n d a n t , Roy S. Todd as f o l l o w s : P r i n c i p a l i n t h e amount o f $11,721.03, p l u s i n t e r e s t w h i c h c u r r e n t l y t o t a l s $0.00, p l u s a t t o r n e y f e e s o f $1,758.15, f o r a t o t a l j u d g m e n t o f $13,479.18, p l u s continuing i n t e r e s t and c o s t s o f c o u r t . This i s a f i n a l judgment." A l s o on J u l y 20, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l motion t o d i s m i s s . 5 court denied Todd's original 2110199 Todd f i l e d 2011. a motion to vacate the j u d g m e n t on A u g u s t I n t h a t m o t i o n , he a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n b a s e d on Todd's e l e c t i o n t o a r b i t r a t e u n d e r "Cardmember A g r e e m e n t . " The trial court held 2011, t h a t the A l a b a s t e r h i s son's o f f i c e . a d d r e s s was the a hearing Todd's m o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 29, a t w h i c h Todd 1, on asserted The trial 2011. Todd f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t on November 14, 2011. c o u r t d e n i e d Todd's m o t i o n t o v a c a t e on O c t o b e r 4, Todd r a i s e s a number o f a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l . those arguments out Todd argues of that We address order. the trial court erred by allowing D i s c o v e r t o p r o c e e d a g a i n s t Todd w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g D i s c o v e r provide proof of standing. Todd a s s e r t s that an affidavit s u b m i t t e d by D i s c o v e r r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r D i s c o v e r standing to bring the present r e f e r s t o i n d i c a t e s t h a t DFS agent of affidavit, interest, Discover. Todd " [ i ] t would since they action. The S e r v i c e s , LLC, asserts appear initiated DFS that, is the collection." 6 to affidavit had Todd i s the s e r v i c i n g based real See on that party Rule in 17(a), 2110199 Ala. R. C i v . P.; 770 3 s e e a l s o B a t t l e v. A l p h a Chem. & P a p e r Co., So. 2d 626, 634 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) whether a p a r t y has s t a n d i n g he o r she i s t h e r e a l ("[T]he t o sue i s d i s t i n c t party i n interest. question from whether While the r e a l - p a r t y - i n - i n t e r e s t p r i n c i p l e d i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n t o whether t h e plaintiff has a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r e s t i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r action he o r s h e h a s i n s t i t u t e d , s t a n d i n g r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f demonstrate an i n j u r y to a legally protected right."). We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t i t s e l f makes c l e a r t h a t t h e debt i s owed t o D i s c o v e r . that a question interest. Thus, we r e j e c t Todd's of fact e x i s t s regarding Insofar as Todd asserts that, the real argument party i n when c r e d i t - c a r d i s s u e r s s e l l c r e d i t - c a r d a c c o u n t s r e c e i v a b l e , t h e i s s u i n g bank no longer owns t h o s e a c c o u n t s evidence t o the t r i a l 3 r e c e i v a b l e , Todd p r e s e n t e d court, despite the t r i a l court's no having R u l e 1 7 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " E v e r y a c t i o n s h a l l be p r o s e c u t e d i n t h e name o f t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . An e x e c u t o r , a d m i n i s t r a t o r , g u a r d i a n , b a i l e e , t r u s t e e o f an e x p r e s s t r u s t , a p a r t y w i t h whom o r i n whose name a c o n t r a c t h a s b e e n made f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f a n o t h e r , or a party a u t h o r i z e d b y s t a t u t e may s u e i n t h a t p e r s o n ' s own name w i t h o u t j o i n i n g t h e p a r t y f o r whose b e n e f i t t h e action i s brought." 7 2110199 p r o v i d e d him e x t e n s i v e Discover o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o do s o , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t d i d n o t own Todd's a c c o u n t o r t h a t h i s a c c o u n t h a d been t r a n s f e r r e d . Todd argues that summary judgment dismiss forviolation Act, 15 U.S.C. Although this the t r i a l i n favor court erred by e n t e r i n g of Discover while h i s motion t o o f t h e F a i r Debt C o l l e c t i o n P r a c t i c e s § 1692 e t s e q . ("the FDCPA"), i s how Todd has framed i n t e r p r e t h i s a r g u m e n t as one t h a t was p e n d i n g . this the t r i a l denying h i s i n i t i a l motion t o d i s m i s s . argument, court Because p r e d a t e d t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n any by t h e t r i a l preclude court the effectiveness proceedings, we address i n denying this caution. I n h i s motion Discover's attorneys issue and because filings could and o u t o f an a b u n d a n c e o f to dismiss, had v i o l a t e d erred i n the motion o f any s u b s e q u e n t we Todd's m o t i o n to dismiss error a § Todd asserted that 809 o f t h e FDCPA b y f a i l i n g t o v a l i d a t e Todd's d e b t i n r e s p o n s e t o h i s v a l i d a t i o n letter and by f a i l i n g t o cease s u c h v a l i d a t i o n was o b t a i n e d . collection With regard o f d e b t s , 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.(a) that 8 provides, activities until to the v a l i d a t i o n i n pertinent part, 2110199 " [ w ] i t h i n f i v e days a f t e r the i n i t i a l communication w i t h a consumer i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i s contained i n the i n i t i a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n o r t h e consumer has p a i d t h e d e b t , s e n d t h e consumer a w r i t t e n n o t i c e c o n t a i n i n g -" "(4) a s t a t e m e n t t h a t i f t h e consumer n o t i f i e s the debt c o l l e c t o r i n writing w i t h i n the t h i r t y - d a y p e r i o d that the debt, o r any p o r t i o n t h e r e o f , i s d i s p u t e d , t h e debt c o l l e c t o r w i l l o b t a i n v e r i f i c a t i o n of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such v e r i f i c a t i o n o r judgment w i l l be m a i l e d t o t h e consumer by t h e d e b t c o l l e c t o r " Subparagraph (b) o f § 1692g. a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t the purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o v e r i f y t o the debtor the i d e n t i t y of the original "debt creditor; collector," i n d e e d , 15 as used U.S.C. § 1 6 9 2 a . ( 6 ) in c o l l e c t i n g the debt of another. § 1692g.(a), Discover as defines a a person asserts i n i t s brief t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t i t i s n o t a " d e b t c o l l e c t o r " as d e f i n e d i n § 1692a.(6) b u t , r a t h e r , t h e o r i g i n a l c r e d i t o r . its r e s p o n s e t o Todd's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , t h a t i t had p r o v i d e d A u g u s t 23, Discover asserted v e r i f i c a t i o n o f Todd's d e b t on o r a b o u t 2010. Todd c i t e s App. Moreover, i n S p e a r s v. B r e n n a n , 745 N.E.2d 862 (Ind. Ct. 2001), i n support of h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t the t r i a l 9 court 2110199 erred in entering a summary j u d g m e n t dismiss, which a s s e r t e d him verification with note t h a t t h i s state. (Ala. See 2004). separate that Discover of h i s debt, Moreover, trial the initial court to pending. the i n Spears, the and the 893 So. debtor debtor c o m m u n i c a t i o n was notice sent by of the provide of The does n o t c o n t a i n a copy of the r e c o r d on 23, appeal 2010. to h i s r e p l y b r i e f represents that the another had creditor's Discover's to Discover that court attorneys are and that 745 N.E.2d letter to t h i s them attorney case, presents case, collection; s e n t by a civil In t h a t i n the present Todd 381 brought available debt we 2d 376, q u o t e d i n t h e o p i n i o n on a p p e a l . a t 868. August c o u r t had to First, opinions 745 N.E.2d a t 869. appeals communication the exhibit motion a c t i o n a g a i n s t the c r e d i t o r ' s a t t o r n e y seeking the about his failed Ted's Game E n t e r s . , l i a b i l i t y u n d e r t h e FDCPA. giving had was c o u r t i s n o t b o u n d by Ex p a r t e while however, letter on as or an argues t h a t i t debt collectors; however, because t h a t l e t t e r i s not c o n t a i n e d i n the r e c o r d on appeal, v. we may not consider it. S t a t e Dep't o f P u b l i c H e a l t h , 711 App. 1997). 10 See Quality Living, So. 2d 1021, 1026 Inc. (Ala. Civ. 2110199 A " R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t a p p e a r s b e y o n d d o u b t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f c a n p r o v e no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m t h a t w o u l d e n t i t l e t h e p l a i n t i f f to relief." (Ala. 1993). 4 Nance v. M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2d 297, 299 We c o n c l u d e , b a s e d on Todd's f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t evidence t o the t r i a l court i n d i c a t i n g that Discover c o l l e c t o r as d e f i n e d b y t h e FDCPA o r t h a t D i s c o v e r t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e FDCPA, t h a t t h e t r i a l i s a debt had f a i l e d court d i d not e r r i n d e n y i n g Todd's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . Todd n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n denying a stay pending c o n t r a c t u a l a r b i t r a t i o n . does n o t c o n t a i n an o r d e r transcript there that i n the State the t r i a l on a p p e a l d e n y i n g Todd's m o t i o n t o s t a y o r a o f t h e J u n e 23, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g i s nothing indicating The r e c o r d Judicial court entered on t h a t m o t i o n , a n d Information an order System denying To t h e e x t e n t t h a t Todd a s s e r t s t h i s i s s u e i n r e g a r d t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f D i s c o v e r , we n o t e t h a t Todd f a i l e d t o f i l e a r e s p o n s e t o D i s c o v e r ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n a n d f a i l e d t o r a i s e any v i o l a t i o n o f t h e FDCPA b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e J a n u a r y 6, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g o r t h e May 12, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g on D i s c o v e r ' s summaryj u d g m e n t m o t i o n . Thus, we l i m i t o u r d i s c u s s i o n on t h i s i s s u e t o Todd's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . 4 11 2110199 Todd's m o t i o n . was The p a r t i e s agree, however, t h a t t h a t d e n i e d a t t h e June 23, 2011, hearing. See motion supra note 2. "Review of a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n i s p r o p e r l y sought t h r o u g h a d i r e c t a p p e a l . R u l e 4 ( d ) , A l a . R. App. P.; A.G. Edwards & Sons, I n c . v. C l a r k , 558 So. 2d 358, 360 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . We a p p l y t h e de novo s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t o s u c h a p p e a l s . G r e e n T r e e F i n . C o r p . o f A l a b a m a v. V i n t s o n , 753 So. 2d 497, 502 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . "A p a r t y s e e k i n g t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g : (1) t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n i n g an a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t and (2) t h a t t h e underlying contract evidences a transaction affecting interstate commerce. Kenworth of B i r m i n g h a m , I n c . v. L a n g l e y , 828 So. 2d 288, 290 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . Once t h o s e two i t e m s have b e e n shown, the burden s h i f t s t o the opposing p a r t y t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e e i t h e r t h a t the a r b i t r a t i o n agreement i s n o t v a l i d o r t h a t i t does n o t a p p l y t o t h e d i s p u t e in question. Id." J i m W a l t e r Homes, I n c . v. Saxton, 880 So. 2d 428, a 430 (Ala. 2003). Attached Todd's motion to s t a y was "Cardmember A g r e e m e n t , " which, as Todd p o i n t e d o u t motion, to c o n t a i n s an arbitration agreement and copy also "Your a c c o u n t i n v o l v e s i n t e r s t a t e commerce and t h i s shall be Thus, the governed burden by the shifted Federal Arbitration to Discover 12 to Act present of the in his states: provision (FAA)." evidence 2110199 i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the a r b i t r a t i o n agreement i s not v a l i d or t h a t it did does n o t not apply to the p r e s e n t file a response to cause of a c t i o n . Todd's motion, and, Discover as stated a b o v e , t h e r e i s no t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n i n the record Discover on appeal; thus, there is no d i s p u t e d t h a t a c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n i n g an agreement exists and that that contract t r a n s a c t i o n a f f e c t i n g i n t e r s t a t e commerce. on indication appeal, however, that Todd arbitration evidences a Discover asserts substantially invoked l i t i g a t i o n process, waiving h i s r i g h t to a r b i t r a t e claims. " ' " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d under Alabama law that a party may waive i t s r i g h t to a r b i t r a t e a dispute i f i t substantially invokes the l i t i g a t i o n process and thereby substantially prejudices the party opposing a r b i t r a t i o n . Whether a p a r t y ' s participation in an action amounts t o an e n f o r c e a b l e w a i v e r o f i t s r i g h t t o a r b i t r a t e depends on whether the participation b e s p e a k s an i n t e n t i o n t o abandon the right in favor of the j u d i c i a l process, and, i f so, whether the opposing p a r t y would be p r e j u d i c e d by a subsequent order r e q u i r i n g i t to submit to a r b i t r a t i o n . No r i g i d r u l e e x i s t s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g what c o n s t i t u t e s 13 that the Discover's 2110199 a waiver of the right to a r b i t r a t e ; t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n as to whether there has been a w a i v e r must, i n s t e a d , be b a s e d on the particular facts of each case." "'Companion L i f e I n s . Co. v. W h i t e s e l l Mfg., I n c . , 670 So. 2d 897, 899 ( A l a . 1995) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . The c o u r t s w i l l n o t l i g h t l y i n f e r a waiver of the r i g h t t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n ; t h u s , t h e b u r d e n on t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t o prove w a i v e r i s a heavy one.' "U.S. P i p e & F o u n d r y Co. v. C u r r e n , 779 So. 2d 1171, 1174 ( A l a . 2000) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , as t h i s C o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y noted: '[T]here i s a presumption against a court's f i n d i n g t h a t a p a r t y has w a i v e d t h e r i g h t t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n . ' E a s t e r n Dredging & Constr., I n c . v. Parliament House, L.L.C., 698 So. 2d 102, 103 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . See a l s o C o n s e c o F i n . C o r p . - A l a b a m a v. S a l t e r , 846 So. 2d 1077, 1080 ( A l a . 2002) ('We n o t e t h a t a p r e s u m p t i o n e x i s t s a g a i n s t a f i n d i n g t h a t a p a r t y has w a i v e d t h e r i g h t t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n . ' ) ; B l u e R i b b o n Homes S u p e r C t r . , I n c . v. B e l l , 821 So. 2d 186, 191 ( A l a . 2001) ('We n o t e t h a t t h e r e i s a p r e s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t f i n d i n g t h a t a p a r t y has w a i v e d t h e r i g h t t o c o m p e l arbitration.'); Zedot Constr., Inc. v. Red S u l l i v a n ' s C o n d i t i o n e d A i r S e r v s . , I n c . , 947 So. 2d 396, 399 ( A l a . 2006); Blue Cross Blue S h i e l d of A l a b a m a v. R i g a s , 923 So. 2d 1077, 1093 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ; and Lee v. YES o f R u s s e l l v i l l e , I n c . , 784 So. 2d 1022, 1028 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . "In order to demonstrate t h a t the r i g h t to arbitrate a d i s p u t e has b e e n w a i v e d , t h e p a r t y o p p o s i n g a r b i t r a t i o n must d e m o n s t r a t e b o t h (1) t h a t the p a r t y seeking a r b i t r a t i o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y invoked t h e l i t i g a t i o n p r o c e s s , and (2) t h a t t h e p a r t y opposing arbitration would be substantially 14 2110199 p r e j u d i c e d by an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g i t t o s u b m i t t o a r b i t r a t i o n . C u r r e n , 779 So. 2d a t 1174; Companion L i f e I n s . Co. v. W h i t e s e l l M f g . , I n c . , 670 So. 2d 897, 899 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " S o u t h T r u s t Bank v. Bowen, 959 So. 2d 624, 632-33 ( A l a . 2006) . I n Bowen, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , "Bowen p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e p r o v i n g he w o u l d be prejudiced, he has demonstrating failed that arbitration." to meet SouthTrust 959 So. 2d a t his substantially 'heavy waived because burden' right its in to 633. I n S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . v. H a r c u s , 754 So. 2d (Ala. 1999), the claims against Harcuses sued a i n the Owner's M a n u a l " Southern Energy. 754 So. transcript record written warranty contained i n a d e l i v e r e d w i t h t h e m o b i l e home; t h e opposed a r b i t r a t i o n . the asserting of a 2d a t S o u t h e r n E n e r g y moved t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n b a s e d provision no Energy, i t stemming f r o m t h e H a r c u s e s ' p u r c h a s e m o b i l e home m a n u f a c t u r e d by 623-24. Southern 622 I d . a t 623-25. on appeal, and "Home Harcuses A h e a r i n g was h e l d , o f t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n was t h e r e was no on but contained i n indication as to whether the p a r t i e s had p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y or o t h e r e v i d e n c e at the hearing. Id. at 625. motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n ; The trial court denied i t made no f i n d i n g s o f f a c t 15 the or 2110199 conclusions appealed of law i n i t s order. the t r i a l arbitration. court's Id. Southern d e n i a l of i t s motion Energy t o compel I d . I n remanding t h e cause t o t h e t r i a l court, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : "We c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e , from t h e scant r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , whether t h e Harcuses agreed, e i t h e r by r a t i f i c a t i o n or otherwise, t o submit t h e i r claims a g a i n s t Southern Energy t o a r b i t r a t i o n . Although the r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s some e v i d e n c e , we do n o t have a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s t o r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t s i n t h a t e v i d e n c e . T h e r e f o r e , we must remand t h i s c a s e f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make s p e c i f i c f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s . On remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s t o c o n d u c t f u r t h e r proceedings and t o take evidence as may be n e c e s s a r y , i n c l u d i n g t e s t i m o n y from such w i t n e s s e s , by d e p o s i t i o n o r o t h e r w i s e , as t h e p a r t i e s c h o o s e t o p r e s e n t . The t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l f i l e a r e t u r n t o t h i s remand w i t h i n 42 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s o p i n i o n . The r e t u r n t o remand s h a l l i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t o f any p r o c e e d i n g s conducted b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t on remand, any e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d b y t h e p a r t i e s , a n d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w . See E u b a n k s v . H a l e , 752 So. 2d 1113, 1120 (Ala. 1999)." 754 So. 2d a t 626-27. In the present case, we are s i m i l a r l y charged d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e t r i a l court e r r e d i n denying to Discover compel substantially arbitration. invoked the l i t i g a t i o n right to a r b i t r a t e Discover's claims. asserts process, with a motion that Todd waiving h i s L i k e i n Southern Energy Homes, t h e r e i s no t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g on Todd's m o t i o n 16 2110199 to compel evidence arbitration was presented and at there is that no indication hearing. Thus, whether we cannot d e t e r m i n e f r o m t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , w h i c h c o n t a i n s no w r i t t e n order from the t r i a l c o u r t and, thus, no c o n c l u s i o n s of law r e g a r d i n g i t s r e a s o n i n g motion to compel arbitration, whether f i n d i n g s of f a c t or f o r d e n y i n g Todd's Discover would be s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d by an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g i t t o s u b m i t t o arbitration. Therefore, like i n S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, "we must remand t h i s c a s e f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make s p e c i f i c f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s . On remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s t o c o n d u c t f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s and t o t a k e e v i d e n c e as may be n e c e s s a r y , i n c l u d i n g testimony f r o m s u c h w i t n e s s e s , by d e p o s i t i o n o r o t h e r w i s e , as t h e p a r t i e s c h o o s e t o p r e s e n t . The t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l f i l e a r e t u r n t o t h i s remand w i t h i n 42 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s o p i n i o n . The r e t u r n t o remand s h a l l i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t o f any p r o c e e d i n g s c o n d u c t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t on remand, any e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w . " Id. Although arbitration issue, we a d d r e s s Todd's r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s to the e x t e n t those issues do not entry directly we are attack r e m a n d i n g on the judgment i n f a v o r of D i s c o v e r of whether the of but case i s submitted 17 the the trial court's remain r e l e v a n t to arbitration. summary regardless 2110199 Todd n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court v i o l a t e d h i s due- p r o c e s s r i g h t s by a l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g on D i s c o v e r ' s judgment Discover's motion t o continue despite p r o d u c e d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e t o Todd. relates s o l e l y t o Todd's judgment, which may be nullity failure Because t h i s rights i n relation a summary- depending to argument t o t h e summary on the trial c o u r t ' s a c t i o n s upon remand, we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e . We i n t e r p r e t Todd's f i n a l a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l as a s s e r t i n g that the t r i a l Because court erred i n f a i l i n g to t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n . "[o]bjections t o improper r a i s e d i n the f i r s t responsive v. Gosa, venue are waived i f not p l e a d i n g , " D e n - T a l - E z e M f g . Co. 388 So. 2d 1006, 1008 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) , and b e c a u s e Todd f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f venue i n h i s i n i t i a l m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s o r i n h i s a n s w e r , t h a t o b j e c t i o n was w a i v e d , and we d e c l i n e to reverse the t r i a l court's ruling on this issue. As for s t a t e d a b o v e , we remand t h e c a s e t o t h e t r i a l the t r i a l motion c o u r t t o make f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g to stay and t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n and to court Todd's conduct f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t o t a k e e v i d e n c e as may be n e c e s s a r y . The trial court shall file a r e t u r n t o remand w i t h i n 42 d a y s 18 2110199 of the date o f t h i s issues opinion. addressed i n t h i s We a f f i r m as t o t h e r e m a i n i n g opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , 19 without writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.