Thursday, March 15, 2007
Doyle v. Finance America LLC (Ct. of Special Appeals)
Filed March 15, 2007 – Opinion by Judge Raymond Thieme
Appellants, Richard A. Doyle and Ruth M. Doyle, sued Finance America, LLC, to recover the interest associated with a mortgage loan, which was disbursed one day late. On the day scheduled for settlement, the Doyles had signed a Dispute Resolution Agreement stating in part that "any dispute, regardless of when it arose, shall be resolved, at your option or ours, by arbitration in accordance with this agreement." The Doyles sued in circuit court to recover damages, on behalf of a putative class. Finance America filed a motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration, which were granted by the circuit court.
Among other things, the Doyles contended that arbitration should not have been mandatory because a condition precedent had not been met, because theirs was a class action suit and such suits were excluded from the agreement, because arbitration was permissive rather than mandatory, and because the agreement was unenforceable as procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
The Court of Special Appeals disagreed and affirmed the decision of the circuit court.
The opinion is available in PDF.
Appellants, Richard A. Doyle and Ruth M. Doyle, sued Finance America, LLC, to recover the interest associated with a mortgage loan, which was disbursed one day late. On the day scheduled for settlement, the Doyles had signed a Dispute Resolution Agreement stating in part that "any dispute, regardless of when it arose, shall be resolved, at your option or ours, by arbitration in accordance with this agreement." The Doyles sued in circuit court to recover damages, on behalf of a putative class. Finance America filed a motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration, which were granted by the circuit court.
Among other things, the Doyles contended that arbitration should not have been mandatory because a condition precedent had not been met, because theirs was a class action suit and such suits were excluded from the agreement, because arbitration was permissive rather than mandatory, and because the agreement was unenforceable as procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
The Court of Special Appeals disagreed and affirmed the decision of the circuit court.
The opinion is available in PDF.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment