Edwards v. Costner

979 So. 2d 757 (Ala. 2007) · Supreme Court of Alabama · August 17, 2007 · No. 1060099

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration arising from the sale of a used automobile. The court held that the transaction involved interstate commerce under the Federal Arbitration Act and that Kimbril, who signed the arbitration agreement, was required to arbitrate his claims. The court affirmed the denial of arbitration as to Costner because he was a nonsignatory and neither the third-party-beneficiary nor intertwined-claims theory applied.

Holdings

  1. The sale of the 1993 Ford Probe and Edwards Motors' regular automobile-dealer business involved interstate commerce, making the Federal Arbitration Act applicable.
  2. An affidavit based on personal knowledge stating that vehicles sold by the dealership crossed state lines and that the dealership used out-of-state financing and interstate communications made a prima facie showing that the transaction involved interstate commerce; documentary proof of the communications was unnecessary.
  3. The trial court erred by denying the motion to compel arbitration as to Kimbril's claims because Kimbril signed the arbitration agreement and the transaction involved interstate commerce.
  4. Costner could not be compelled to arbitrate because he did not sign the arbitration agreement, was not shown to be an intended third-party beneficiary, and could not be bound under the intertwined-claims theory when a signatory sought to compel a nonsignatory.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the automobile-sale transaction involved interstate commerce so that the Federal Arbitration Act applied.
  2. Whether the evidence submitted with the motion to compel arbitration sufficiently established the transaction's connection to interstate commerce.
  3. Whether Costner, a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement, could be compelled to arbitrate under a third-party-beneficiary or intertwined-claims theory.
  4. Whether Kimbril's claims against Edwards and Edwards Motors were subject to arbitration under the agreement he signed.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (26)

  • Bowen v. Security Pest Control, Inc., 879 So. 2d 1139, 1141 (Ala. 2003)(followed)
  • Polaris Sales, Inc. v. Heritage Imports, Inc., 879 So. 2d 1129, 1132 (Ala. 2004)(followed)
  • Wolff Motor Co. v. White, 869 So. 2d 1129, 1131-34 (Ala. 2003)(followed)
  • Jim Burke Auto., Inc. v. Beavers, 674 So. 2d 1260, 1265 (Ala. 1995)(followed)
  • In re American Freight Sys., Inc., 164 B.R. 341, 345 (D. Kan. 1994)(followed)
  • Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 56-57, 123 S. Ct. 2037, 156 L. Ed. 2d 46 (2003)(followed)
  • Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219, 236, 68 S. Ct. 996, 92 L. Ed. 1328 (1948)(followed)
  • McKay Bldg. Co. v. Juliano, 949 So. 2d 882, 885-86 (Ala. 2006)(followed)
  • Dan Wachtel Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Inc. v. Modas, 891 So. 2d 287, 292 (Ala. 2004)(followed)
  • Huntsville Utilities v. Consolidated Construction Co., 876 So. 2d 450 (Ala. 2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 26.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…