Title: AmSouth Bank v. Dees

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

847 So. 2d 923 (2002)
AmSOUTH BANK
v.
Leffie Terrell DEES III and Yvette Dees.
1010361.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 4, 2002.
*926 Edward A. Dean and Mary Carol Ladd of Armbrecht Jackson, LLP, Mobile, for appellant.
James Lynn Perry of Daniell, Upton, Perry & Morris, P.C., Mobile, for appellees.
HARWOOD, Justice.
On June 26, 2001, Leffie Terrell Dees III and Yvette Dees sued AmSouth Bank and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., asserting claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, suppression, deceit, negligence, wantonness, and conspiracy, allegedly arising from the wrongful handling of a mortgage loan. On August 23, 2001, AmSouth filed a motion to compel arbitration of the Deeses' claims on the basis that *927 two agreements between it and thema "Customer Agreement for Depository Account," associated with a checking account the Deeses opened on June 11, 1992, and a April 16, 1996, "AmSouth Equity Line of Credit Agreement"contained arbitration clauses applicable to the dispute.[1] On September 10, 2001, the Deeses filed their "Response and Objection to Defendant, AmSouth Bank's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Defendant, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.'s Joinder In Same and Motion to Strike" (hereinafter referred to as the "response").[2] On October 12, 2001, the trial court heard oral argument on AmSouth's motion to compel arbitration and, at the conclusion of the hearing, denied it both orally and by a terse entry on the case action summary stating "October 12, 2001DENIED."[3] On October 17, 2001, the court entered an order on the case action summary stating that Countrywide's joinder in seeking to compel arbitration was likewise denied. On November 9, 2001, AmSouth filed a notice of appeal from the denial of its motion.[4] We reverse the order denying AmSouth's motion to compel arbitration and remand the cause.
On February 4, 1994, the Deeses mortgaged their home to AmSouth Mortgage Company, Inc., to secure a 20-year loan in the amount of $55,090 (that mortgage is hereinafter referred to as "the first mortgage"). AmSouth Mortgage is not a party to this action. The mortgage documents provided for an annual interest rate of 7%. Neither the mortgage nor the underlying promissory note contained an arbitration clause. On October 31, 1994, AmSouth Mortgage assigned the mortgage to Countrywide.
On April 16, 1996, Mr. Dees entered into an "AmSouth Equity Line of Credit Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as the "credit agreement") in connection with obtaining a $15,000 line of credit. Although Mrs. Dees did not sign the credit agreement, she did sign a contemporaneously executed document captioned "Opening an AmSouth Equity Line of Credit Account"; that document identified her as an "account holder." The document stated in its introduction that "[AmSouth has] agreed to establish an open-end account for you...," and went on to explain her right to cancel the account upon taking certain steps. In describing this particular transaction in their complaint, the Deeses state the following: "On April 16, 1996, the Plaintiffs took out a home equity line of credit with AmSouth. Plaintiffs borrowed money on this line of credit." (Emphasis supplied.) The Deeses were given "special checks" to use to obtain advances from the *928 line of credit. The credit agreement stated, in pertinent part:
Section 33 of the credit agreement contains an arbitration clause, which states, in pertinent part:
The line of credit was secured by a second mortgage of the same date on the Deeses' home, signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Dees. The mortgage document did not contain an arbitration clause. The annual interest rate of the line of credit was 1.5% above prime, which, at the time the agreement was executed, translated to an annual interest rate of 9.75%.
Mr. Dees subsequently requested an increase in the line-of-credit limit, and on June 10, 1997, he and Mrs. Dees signed an "Amendment to Adjustable-Rate Line of Credit Mortgage" (hereinafter referred to as the "amended second mortgage"). AmSouth increased the line of credit from $15,000 to $20,000. Subsequently, as the Deeses state in their complaint, "[b]y March 2001, ... the Deeses had fallen behind on the Equity Line." On March 13, 2001, AmSouth purchased the Deeses' first mortgage from Countrywide and increased the amount owing under the Deeses' line of credit to $72,352.20. This amount reflected the addition of $51,210.74 that AmSouth had paid Countrywide for the assignment of the first mortgage. AmSouth proceeded to charge the Deeses interest based on the higher interest rate applicable to the line of credit, instead of the 7% interest rate of the first mortgage. AmSouth did not seek the approval of the Deeses for that course of action.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in denying AmSouth's motion to compel arbitration of the Deeses' claims.
Our standard of review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is settled:
Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 2, provides in pertinent part:
Section 2 preempts conflicting Alabama law, including in particular Ala.Code 1975, § 8-1-41(3), which states that "[a]n agreement to submit a controversy to arbitration" cannot be specifically enforced.
However, the FAA applies to render enforceable a predispute arbitration agreement only if the contract containing the agreement, or the transaction the contract evidences, "substantially affects interstate commerce." Sisters of the Visitation v. Cochran Plastering Co., 775 So. 2d 759, 766 (Ala.2000); accord Equifirst Corp. v. Ware, 808 So. 2d 1, 4 (Ala.2001). The party moving to compel arbitration has the burden of proving that the contract in question evidences a transaction substantially affecting interstate commerce. Chesser v. AmSouth Bank, 846 So. 2d 1082 (Ala.2002). Undertaking to carry that burden, AmSouth supported its motion with affidavits from four of its officers: a vice president serving as manager of its equity loan center; a senior vice president serving as wholesale funding manager; a senior vice president serving as manager of electronic banking; and a senior vice president serving as manager of deposit operations. Collectively, those affidavits set forth the following information concerning the effects of the equity-line-of-credit transaction on interstate commerce:[5]
The Deeses did not object to, or move to strike, any of these assertions, and they did not offer any evidentiary submissions of their own.
V. The Scope of the Arbitration Clause in the Credit Agreement: Identifying "the Controversy" and "the Transactions."
Pursuant to the express language of Section 2 of the FAA, only a controversy that arises out of the transaction in question can be forced to arbitration. The Deeses state in their brief that "it is nonsensical to contend that [their] present claims arise out of, are in connection with, or relate to the Equity Line," i.e., the credit agreement and the transaction it evidenced. The Deeses argue that the "Equity Line was just the vehicle used by AmSouth to wrongfully change the terms of the Dees/AmSouth First Mortgage." They cite Koullas v. Ramsey, 683 So. 2d 415, 417 (Ala.1996), for the proposition that "this Court will not stretch the language of a contract to apply to matters that were not contemplated by the parties when they entered the contract." They then assert that they "could not have contemplated in their wildest dreams the March 2001 manner in which AmSouth would use the Equity Line by increasing the Equity Line principal by $51,210.74 to purchase the [Deeses'] First mortgage from Countrywide." In Koullas the arbitration clause extended only to "disputes between the parties arising under this Agreement," 683 So. 2d  at 417 (emphasis omitted); this court *932 explained the effect of that limitation as follows:
683 So. 2d  at 417-18.
Because in Koullas this Court was called upon to construe only the phrase "arising under this [a]greement," observations made in that opinion concerning the construction to be accorded to the different phrase "arising out of or relating to" an agreement were technically dictum. Certainly our caselaw on point as to that latter phrase has distinguished it from the former and has assigned to Koullas its proper role as commenting on only the former. For example, in Ex parte Cupps, 782 So. 2d 772 (Ala.2000), this Court stated in a footnote:
782 So. 2d  at 776-77 n. 1. See also Birmingham News Co. v. Lynch, 797 So. 2d 440, 444-45 (Ala.2001), summarizing the holding in Koullas as being that an "arbitration clause referring to disputes or controversies `arising under' an agreement applies only to those claims arising under the terms of the agreement, and does not extend to matters or claims independent of, or merely collateral to, the agreement."
Subsequent to Koullas this Court has also pointed out that
Vann v. First Community Credit Corp., 834 So. 2d 751, 754 (Ala.2002). See also Beaver Constr. Co. v. Lakehouse, L.L.C., 742 So. 2d 159, 165 (Ala.1999) (`"relatingto' language has been held to constitute a relatively broad arbitration provision").
Likewise, in Bama's Best Housing, Inc. v. Hodges, 847 So. 2d 300, 303 (Ala. 2002), we observed:
(Emphasis omitted.) "The `arising out of language was not intended to cover matters or claims independent of, or collateral to, the contract." American Bankers Life Assurance Co. v. Rice Acceptance Co., 709 So. 2d 1188, 1191 (Ala.1998)(a three-Justice opinion, with two Justices concurring specially in such a way as to endorse this proposition). See also Ex parte Discount Foods, Inc., 789 So. 2d 842, 845 (Ala.2001), and Ex parte Crisona, 743 So. 2d 452, 456 (Ala.1999).
In Ex parte Messer, 797 So. 2d 1079, 1082-83 (Ala.2001), we made the following observations about the proper interplay between state-law principles of contract interpretation and federal substantive arbitration law:
797 So. 2d  at 1082.
Where the parties have entered into a single written contact and a dispute thereafter develops between them directly arising out of that contract, the requirement in § 2 of the FAA that there be "a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract" *934 is easily determined to have been satisfied. Likewise, the analysis is fairly straightforward as to the alternative provided by § 2 of "a controversy thereafter arising out of such ... transaction" when the contours of the "transaction evidenced by the contract" are distinct and the dispute that develops can confidently be said to arise out of it.
Where, however, the parties have entered into a succession of contractual dealings, extending over the course of several years and involving various "subtransactions," identifying the "controversy" (or, to use the phrase in the arbitration clause at issue, the "controversy, claim, dispute, or disagreement") and determining which, if any, of the contracts it arises out of (or, to use the phrase in the arbitration clause at issue, "arises out of, in connection with, or relates to"), can become problematic. Analyzing the connection and relationship between the subsequently arising controversy and the various earlier contracts and transactions requires first a determination of the nature of the controversy. (Hereinafter we may alternatively substitute "dispute" or "claim" for the FAA's term "controversy," given that the parties here use those first two terms in phrasing their arguments.)
Identification of the "transaction," against the backdrop of a series of contracts and dealings, becomes a function of identification of the dispute. Until one knows what the dispute is, one does not have a frame of reference for analyzing the relationship, if any, between it and the parties' prior transactions and dealings. Where, as here, the dispute has been articulated in a complaint filed to initiate a lawsuit, that statement by the plaintiffs of their claim or claims is essentially determinative, absent an amendment of the complaint or other types of formal submissions altering the statement of the claim or claims. Thus, in the litigation context, the plaintiffs have the opportunity, in the first instance, to define the dispute. They may pursue or forgo available claims as they see fit and select the factual underpinnings they deem pertinent to aver. In this case, the Deeses elected to include within the introductory factual averments of their complaint the following:
The Deeses then proceeded to state their claims arising out of those facts in the following counts, which included the following numbered paragraph averments:
III. Breach of Contract
V. Unjust Enrichment
VI. Fraud/Suppression/Deceit
VII. Negligence
VIII. Wantonness
As noted, the Deeses take the position that their claims have nothing to do with the credit agreement or the line-of-credit transaction it set in motion, but rather:
(Emphasis in original.) AmSouth takes the opposite position, arguing that "[w]hat is disputed in this case is whether AmSouth had the contractual right to combine the First Mortgage and the Equity Line of Credit, when the Deeses were in default on the Equity Line." AmSouth contends that it had that right.
*936 Given the broad language of the arbitration clause ("any controversy, claim, dispute, or disagreement arising out of, in connection with, or relating to this Agreement or your Loan") (emphasis supplied) and the Deeses' expansive statement of their claims in their complaint, we conclude that their dispute with AmSouth does in substantial part arise out of, relate to, and/or has a connection with, the credit agreement and the loan it gave rise to. Not only have the Deeses pleaded claims against AmSouth based on its alleged wrongful "rolling" of the first-mortgage loan into their line-of-credit loan, they have also alleged that AmSouth and Countrywide "conspired" to combine the amount of the first-mortgage indebtedness "into the Plaintiffs' existing line of credit, charg[ing] an increased interest rate as well as additional fees and expenses." We do not view our identification of the transaction to which the dispute relates under the facts of this case as an either/or situation, whereby the dispute can relate exclusively only to either the first-mortgage loan or the line-of-credit loan. The claims put forth by the Deeses relate in part to both of those loans and their contractual underpinnings. Even under the Koullas test, which, as noted, is rightly to be employed only with respect to those arbitration provisions that contain simply the basic phrase "arising under this agreement," the dispute presented by the Deeses "raise[s] some issue that cannot be resolved without a reference to or construction of the [credit agreement] itself." 683 So. 2d  at 418.
Having concluded that "the dispute" in this case has a sufficient nexus to the credit agreement and the loan transaction it evidences to be fairly said to arise out of, or in connection with, that transaction, or to relate to it, we now turn to an analysis of whether that agreement and/or transaction had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
In Sisters of the Visitation v. Cochran Plastering Co., 775 So. 2d 759 (Ala. 2000), this Court listed factors to be considered in determining whether a transaction has had a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. Those factors are: (1) the citizenship of the parties and any affiliation the parties have with out-of-state entities; (2) tools and equipment used in performance of the contract; (3) allocation of the contract price to cost of services and materials involved in performance of the contract; (4) subsequent movement of the object of the contract across state lines; and (5) the degree to which the contract at issue was separable from other contracts that are subject to the FAA. Id. at 765-66. In determining whether a transaction affects interstate commerce, the United States Supreme Court directs that we "consider[] the aggregate effects the transaction has on interstate commerce." Tefco Fin. Co. v. Green, 793 So. 2d 755, 759 (Ala. 2001).
AmSouth does not dispute that the Deeses are Alabama residents, and it admits in its brief to this Court that it is "an Alabama state-chartered bank." However, as previously noted, the Deeses' complaint presents claims against both AmSouth and Countrywide, a foreign corporation, and asserts that various aspects of the transactions underlying their action involved Countrywide. As also noted earlier, the Deeses' complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, suppression, negligence, and wantonness by both AmSouth *937 and Countrywide, stemming from the alleged wrongful handling of the mortgage loan and the line of credit. Importantly, the complaint alleges that a conspiracy between AmSouth and Countrywide to defraud the Deeses in connection with the transaction existed. The Deeses' allegation of a conspiracy between Countrywide and AmSouth will necessitate an analysis of the business dealings between them in the subject transactions. Furthermore, the interrelated nature of the claims asserted against AmSouth and Countrywide in the complaint implicates the entirety of their relationship. Thus, the citizenship-of-the-parties factor, relating to Countrywide's status, lends some support to an argument that the credit agreement evidences a transaction that substantially affects interstate commerce. It does not matter that Countrywide ultimately dismissed its appeal of the denial of its request for arbitration, because we consider only the record the trial court had before it, and Countrywide was a codefendant in the case at all times during the proceedings below.
Unlike Sisters of the Visitation, the transaction in this case does not involve any "tools and equipment." This case involves the use of money and the creation of financial obligations. Although the nature of this case blurs the distinction between the consideration of "tools and equipment" and the "allocation of cost of services and materials" factors, AmSouth has provided evidence showing (1) that in determining whether to extend a line of credit to the Deeses, AmSouth obtained a credit bureau report from Equifax, Inc., a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia; (2) that AmSouth required in connection with both the original line of credit and its later increase, proof of property insurance, which was provided in the form of a policy issued by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, an Illinois corporation; (3) that AmSouth purchased a title insurance policy in connection with the credit agreement, and the amended second mortgage, which was issued by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation; (4) that AmSouth relied on proof of the existence of a prior mortgage and a statement of the remaining principal balance owing under it, provided by the Texas office of Countrywide, a New York corporation; (5) that in connection with the line of credit, AmSouth obtained a flood-data certification from First American Flood Data Services, Inc., a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas; and (6) that the Deeses' equityline statements were printed and mailed to them by TSYS in Columbus, Georgia. We have previously held that the procurement of insurance coverages from out-of-state, as a reasonably necessary aspect of a transaction, is properly to be considered in evaluating that transaction's impact on interstate commerce. Chesser v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 846 So. 2d 1082 (Ala.2002). Our consideration in this case of the "tools and equipment" factor and the "allocation of cost of services and materials" factor provides strong support for the conclusion that the credit agreement evidences a transaction that substantially affects interstate commerce.
AmSouth argues that the proceeds of a loan are "intrinsically mobile," and that the equity line of credit, unlike a *938 first mortgage, can be used to purchase goods and services in interstate commerce. AmSouth further argues that "on at least three occasions in the past two years, [the Deeses] transferred money electronically from the equity line of credit to a checking account ..., from which they could write checks to purchase goods and services in interstate commerce." Although we agree that the proceeds of a loan are mobile, we reiterate our statement in Alternative Financial Solutions, LLC v. Colburn, 821 So. 2d 981 (Ala.2001), that "[a]lthough we agree that loan proceedsmoneysare `mobile,' this language does not stand for the proposition that a loan transaction inherently triggers the FAA." 821 So. 2d  at 986 (emphasis supplied).
AmSouth asserts that the Deeses used instrumentalities of interstate commerce to perform transactions with respect to the line of credit. In particular, affidavit testimony establishes the following:
Lastly, AmSouth argues that the equity line of credit was a substantial loan, starting at $15,000, extended to $20,000, and subsequently expanded to $72,352.20, in contrast with the loans in Colburn, which involved amounts of less than $300. Additionally, we recognize that AmSouth's purchase of the Deeses' mortgage from Countrywide, an out-of-state corporation, financed by a cash advance of $51,210.74 from the line of credit, is an aspect of the unfolding transactions that necessarily involved interstate commerce. Our consideration of the size of the funds and their movement across state lines provides further support for a conclusion that the credit agreement evidences a transaction that, in its totality, substantially affected interstate commerce.
As previously discussed, the Deeses' equity line of credit is interrelated with other contracts. In Brown v. Dewitt, Inc., 808 So. 2d 11 (Ala.2001), we stated:
808 So. 2d  at 14. Here, as in Brown, there is evidence of the procurement of insurance coverage, but, as previously mentioned, there is the additional evidence of a credit report, a flood-data certificate, and accounting and billing services necessary for creating and maintaining the Deeses' line of credit. Thus, we conclude that this final Sisters of the Visitation factor lends some support to a conclusion that the credit agreement evidences a transaction that substantially affects interstate commerce.
Giving due consideration to all of these circumstances, we conclude that AmSouth has shown that the aggregate effect of the credit-line transaction substantially involved interstate commerce.
Based on the findings and legal conclusions we have expressed thus far, it is clear that Mr. Dees, as a signatory to the credit agreement, is obligated to arbitrate the claims he has asserted against AmSouth. Whether Mrs. Dees is likewise obligated to submit her claims to arbitration requires further analysis.
As noted, she is not a signatory to the credit agreement, but she was a signatory to an associated document which identified her as an "account holder" as to the line-of-credit account. Also, as previously noted, Mr. and Mrs. Dees allege in their complaint that they took out the line of credit and that they borrowed money on it. Mrs. Dees, along with Mr. Dees, alleges a breach of contract in connection with AmSouth's "wrongfully combining Plaintiffs' mortgage loan into his equity line of credit." The rest of the claims and entitlements to damages are asserted equally on her and his behalf. In their brief to this Court, the Deeses take note of Mrs. Dees's status as a nonsignatory only in passing, as follows:
Nonetheless, we are obliged to consider her status because we "will affirm the trial court [as to Mrs. Dees] if its ruling is correct on any valid ground or rationale, even one rejected or not considered by the trial court." Rogers Found. Repair, Inc. v. Powell, 748 So. 2d 869, 872 (Ala.1999).
We conclude that Mrs. Dees must submit to arbitration her part of the claims she asserts jointly with her husband against AmSouth. The legal principles dictating that result were well stated in Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin, 807 So. 2d 524, 526-27 (Ala.2001):
As similarly analyzed in Credit Sales, Inc. v. Crimm, 815 So. 2d 540, 546 (Ala. 2001), to the extent that Mrs. Dees "bases her claims on another party's contract with the defendants," she cannot "avoid the operation of the arbitration provision of that contract.... [S]he cannot pick and choose which contract provisions she wishes to have benefit her and reject those she does not wish to have bind her; instead, she must accept or reject the entire contract." If Mrs. Dees were to take the position that she is not a party to, and is not bound by any of the terms of, the credit agreement, then she would have no standing to seek damages for the alleged wrongful increase of the indebtedness owing under that agreement or the increase of the interest rate. She does claim damages for those changes in the credit line established by that agreement, however, and therefore must accept the entire contract.
We address finally the Deeses' argument in their brief to this Court that the trial court's order denying arbitration must be affirmed because the arbitration clause contained in the credit agreement is unenforceable as a matter of law, because, they say, AmSouth's "conduct" was unconscionable. Unconscionability is a contract defense and does not apply to actions taken outside the ambit of a contract. The defense of unconscionability is codified in Ala.Code 1975, § 5-19-16, which provides:
See also Harold Allen's Mobile Home Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Butler, 825 So. 2d 779, 783 (Ala.2002) ("`While it is true that a court may rescind a contract, or a portion of a contract, for unconscionability, "[r]escission of a contract for unconscionability is an extraordinary remedy usually reserved for the protection of the unsophisticated and uneducated."'") (quoting Layne v. Garner, 612 So. 2d 404, 408 (Ala.1992)).
In an attempt to place their unconscionability argument in a contract context, the Deeses contend that AmSouth, by increasing *941 the amount owing under their line of credit, "unilaterally created a new contract, an Equity Line of Credit for $72,352.20." They argue that this new, unilateral contract is unenforceable as unconscionable, and "as the contract is unenforceable then any arbitration clause would also be unenforceable." We cannot agree that the credit agreement has been supplanted by a new contract, as opposed to allegedly having been breached by AmSouth by its unilateral increase of the line-of-credit debt. (Of course, nothing we say in this regard reflects any opinion as to the merits of the dispute between the parties.) The Deeses assert in their complaint, and to this Court on appeal, that AmSouth had no authority to do what it did in connection with the way it handled its acquisition of the first mortgage, by allocating its acquisition cost to the line-of-credit indebtedness, whereas AmSouth asserts that its conduct in that regard was in all respects contractually authorized and proper. We have no need to consider the relative merits of those positions, being concerned at this stage only with the issue whether, as to the dispute so framed by the Deeses in their complaint, AmSouth is entitled to compel arbitration. Being of the opinion that the credit agreement survived intact the alteration of the indebtedness it evidenced, although the Deeses claim it was thereby breached, we likewise conclude that its arbitration clause survives.
There is an independent, and equally compelling, reason the Deeses cannot take advantage of the alleged "unconscionability": they never raised it as an issue in the trial court. Neither in their response to AmSouth's motion to compel arbitration nor at any other time during the proceedings below, at least insofar as is reflected in the record, did they assert unconscionability as a defense to AmSouth's demand for arbitration. "Unconscionability is an affirmative defense, Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Wampler, 749 So. 2d 409, 415 (Ala.1999), and the party asserting the defense bears the burden of proof." Fleetwood Enters., Inc. v. Bruno, 784 So. 2d 277, 281 (Ala.2000). See also Conseco Finance v. Murphy, 841 So. 2d 1241 (Ala.2002), and Vann v. First Community Credit Corp., 834 So. 2d 751 (Ala. 2002). (Of course, the burden to assert a defense shifts to the party opposing a motion to compel arbitration, only after the movant has properly supported the motion.) The Deeses having failed to raise in any way a defense of unconscionability in the trial court, they cannot now present it for the first time on appeal.
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order of the trial court denying AmSouth's motion to compel arbitration and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HOUSTON, LYONS, BROWN, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.
SEE, J., concurs in the result.
MOORE, C.J., and JOHNSTONE, J., dissent.
JOHNSTONE, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The FAA applies only if the particular contract which contains the arbitration agreement substantially affects interstate commerce. 9 U.S.C. § 1 and § 2; Alafabco, Inc. v. Citizens Bank, [Ms. 1010703, August 30, 2002] ___ So.2d ____ (Ala.2002); Sisters of the Visitation v. Cochran Plastering Co., 775 So. 2d 759 (Ala.2000); and Rogers Found. Repair, Inc. v. Powell, 748 So. 2d 869 (Ala. 1999). The particular contract in this case is the equity line of credit agreement. For *942 a substantial effect on interstate commerce, however, the main opinion relies entirely on other distinct contracts and transactions collateral to or even unrelated to the equity line of credit agreement. Therefore, the FAA does not govern this case and does not preempt the Alabama law foreclosing the specific enforcement of arbitration agreements, § 8-1-41(3), Ala. Code 1975.
[1]  Because of our disposition of this case, we do not address AmSouth's argument relating to the arbitration clause appearing in the Customer Agreement for Depository Account.
[2]  Sometime before September 10, 2001, Countrywide apparently had filed a "Joinder" in AmSouth's Motion to Compel Arbitration. This is further indicated by the fact that on October 10, 2001, Countrywide also filed a "Joinder" in AmSouth's brief, stating that it was doing so "in further support of its previously filed Joinder in AmSouth's Motion to Compel Arbitration." Nonetheless, the record does not contain a copy of Countrywide's joinder in AmSouth's motion to compel arbitration.
[3]  In its brief to this Court, AmSouth states that the hearing related to both its motion and that of Countrywide. The Deeses state in their brief that the hearing related only to AmSouth's motion. No transcript of the hearing appears in the record and nothing in the record references the scope of the hearing.
[4]  On November 26, 2001, Countrywide filed a notice of appeal; it subsequently filed a motion to dismiss that appeal, which was granted on February 5, 2002.
[5]  Information in the affidavits relating solely to the effect on commerce of the Customer Agreement for Depository Account is omitted. See note 1. Although the information presented here is compiled from four affidavits, it is presented sequentially.