NATIONAL CREDIT ACCEPTANCE, INC. , Plaintiff - Appell ant , vs. CECELIA IBSON WAGNER , Defendant - Appell ee .
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-844 / 08-0598
Filed November 26, 2008
NATIONAL CREDIT ACCEPTANCE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
CECELIA IBSON WAGNER,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink,
Judge.
National Credit Acceptance, Inc. appeals the dismissal of an application
and motion to confirm an arbitration award.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
WITH DIRECTIONS.
Jamie L. Cox of Willson & Pechacek, P.L.C., Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Cecelia Wagner, Des Moines, pro se appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
National Credit Acceptance, Inc. (NCA) appeals the dismissal of an
application and motion to confirm an arbitration award. We reverse and remand
with directions.
I.
Background Proceedings
NCA filed an application and motion to confirm an arbitration award
against Cecilia Wagner.
After receiving the application, Wagner filed a
resistance and cross-motion to vacate the application. NCA responded with an
affidavit from its operations manager attesting in pertinent part that (1) Wagner
entered into a written agreement for the use of a credit card, (2) the agreement
provided for resolution of disputes through binding arbitration, (3) a dispute arose
concerning the failure to pay for credit card purchases, (4) a notice of arbitration
was sent to Wagner, (5) Wagner did not file a response, (6) the arbitrator entered
an award in favor of NCA for $9367.92, and (7) the arbitrator served a signed
copy of the award on Wagner on August 31, 2005.
Following a hearing, the district court dismissed the petition, reasoning
that NCA “failed to prove the exact nature of” the terms of the credit card
agreement and “failed to prove that an „agreement‟ containing those terms was,
in fact, provided to [Wagner].” NCA appeals.
II.
Analysis
Iowa Code section 679A.11 (2007) provides for district court confirmation
of arbitration awards. It states that when a party applies for confirmation of an
arbitration award, the district court “shall confirm” the award unless grounds are
urged for vacating it within the time limits imposed by other provisions.
3
Wagner filed a motion to vacate asserting the absence of an agreement
and corruption in “the entire arbitration process and procedure,” including
issuance of the arbitration award.
To the extent she was challenging the
absence of an arbitration agreement, she was required to file the motion “within
ninety days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant.” Iowa Code
§ 679A.12(3). To the extent she was asserting corruption, she was required to
file the motion “within ninety days after those grounds [were] known or should
have been known.” Id.
As noted, the arbitration award was sent to Wagner on August 31, 2005.
Although the award letter was general, it placed Wagner on notice that the award
was based on “an agreement providing that this matter shall be resolved through
binding arbitration in accordance with the Forum Code of Procedure.” Therefore,
Wagner was obligated to raise both grounds of her motion within ninety days of
August 31, 2005. More than ninety days elapsed before Wagner filed her motion
to vacate. Accordingly, under Iowa Code section 679A.11, the district court was
obligated to confirm the award. $99 Down Payment, Inc. v. Garard, 592 N.W.2d
691, 694 (Iowa 1999) (stating section 679A.11 “clearly imposes a duty upon the
district court to confirm an arbitration award upon application of a party unless a
timely ground to vacate or correct the award has been filed.”).
We find it unnecessary to address NCA‟s remaining arguments.
We
reverse the district court‟s dismissal of the application and motion to confirm
arbitration award and remand for entry of an order confirming the arbitration
award.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
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.
