Preview:

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MARGIE GOODWIN SCHRADER The Koch Law Firm, P.C. Bloomington, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ACCOUNT RECOVERY, INC., Appellant-Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. CHRISTINA ZIMMERMAN, Appellee-Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 55A04-0604-CV-209

APPEAL FROM THE MORGAN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Jane Spencer Craney, Judge Cause No. 55D03-0503-SC-639

September 29, 2006

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge

Case Summary Account Recovery, Inc. ("ARI"), appeals the trial court's refusal to enforce an arbitration award and its judgment in favor of Christine Zimmerman's counterclaim. We reverse. Issue We consolidate and restate ARI's issues as whether the trial court committed prima facie error by refusing to enforce the arbitration award. Facts and Procedural History On April 15, 2002, Zimmerman tendered a personal check in the amount of $225.00 in exchange for a $200.00 short-term loan from County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware ("County Bank"). On that same date, Zimmerman signed a loan note and disclosure ("the Note"), which stated that she would make one payment of $225.00 on April 29, 2002. When County Bank deposited the $225.00 check on April 29, 2002, it was returned for insufficient funds. 1 When Zimmerman failed to respond to a letter regarding the bounced check, County Bank submitted the matter to the National Arbitration Forum ("the NAF"), pursuant to an arbitration clause in the Note. The NAF notified Zimmerman of the claim filed against her and requested notification if she disputed it. Zimmerman completed a form on the NAF's

Zimmerman testified that County Bank's representative told her that she could extend the term of this $200.00 loan by paying $45.00 every two weeks. She claimed that she extended the loan several times but eventually defaulted because the extension fee was suddenly raised to $75.00, an amount that she could not afford to pay. Apparently, there was no written agreement as to the alleged terms of extension. The parties agree, however, that Zimmerman defaulted on the loan, and for purposes of our review, when and how the default occurred is irrelevant.

1

2

website and sent copies of two bank statements, which she claimed showed that County Bank illegally attempted to debit her checking account on four occasions. On April 1, 2003, the NAF entered an award of $1,150.00 in favor of ARI. 2 On March 17, 2005, ARI filed suit against Zimmerman and requested that the trial court enforce the NAF's award. On September 2, 2005, Zimmerman filed a counterclaim, alleging that ARI had "altered information on a check" in violation of Indiana Code Section 24-4.5-7-410. 3 Following a hearing on October 25, 2005, the trial court refused to enforce the arbitration award and awarded Zimmerman $2,000.00 on her counterclaim. ARI now appeals. Discussion and Decision We first note that Zimmerman failed to file an appellee's brief. We will not undertake the burden of developing an argument for her. Willard v. Peak, 834 N.E.2d 220, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Also, we will apply a less stringent standard of review in this case. Id. In the absence of an appellee's brief, we may reverse the trial court if an appellant establishes prima facie error. Id. Prima facie error is defined as "at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it." Id.

From our review of the record, it appears that at least three parties have pursued this particular claim against Zimmerman at different times. Zimmerman originally signed the Note with County Bank as her lender. The NAF's award, issued nearly one year later, shows Hart Funding Corporation as the claimant. Finally, the plaintiff in the trial court and on appeal is Account Recovery, Inc. To avoid confusion, we will simply refer to Zimmerman's adversary as ARI throughout this memorandum decision. Indiana Code Section 24-4.5-7.410(e) prohibits lenders making small loans from "[a]ltering the date or any other information on a check or an authorization to debit the borrower's account held as security."
3

2

3

I. Enforcement of Arbitration Award First, we must determine whether to enforce the arbitration award by determining whether the conflict between the parties fell within their agreement, thereby invoking the agreement's arbitration clause. We apply ordinary contract principles governed by state law to determine whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a dispute. Safety Nat'l Cas. Co. v. Cinergy Corp., 829 N.E.2d 986, 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Here, it is clear that the nature of the parties' disagreement--Zimmerman's default on the Note and ARI's alleged attempts to collect from her following the default--fell within the scope of the Note's arbitration clause. 4 Therefore, Zimmerman and ARI were required to settle their

disagreement through arbitration, and the award in ARI's favor was binding upon the parties. When Zimmerman failed to pay the award, however, ARI properly sought relief from the trial court pursuant to Indiana's Uniform Arbitration Act, which allows parties to seek judicial review and/or enforcement of arbitration awards. See Ind. Code

Download 09290602tac.pdf

Indiana Law