### RHONDA K.\VOOD,Judge Appellanr, 

### Bank 

### of the Ozarks, appeals 

### from the denial

### of its motion

### to compel arbitration of appellees'class-action 

### complaint.lThe circuit court ruled that rhe arbitration clause 

### in the deposit agreement between the bank and appellees was unconscionable. The bank arguesthat 

### the circuit 

### coult erred andthat the arbitration clause is enforceable. We agree and reverse and remand 

### for entry of an order compelling arbitration. Appellees each have 

### a checking account 

### with the bank.

## A deposit agreement govems these relationships and includes, among otherthings, anarbitration clause,2 a class

### I

### An order denying a

### motion 

### to compel arbitration is immediately appeaiable. Ark. 

### R. App. 

### P.-Civil 2(a)(12) (2012). 2The arbitration clause reads asfollows: 

### ARBITRATION. You or we may require that any controversy or 

### claim relating

## to this agreement,

### or breach

## of 

## it, be resolved through arbitration administered 

### by rhe American 

### Arbitration Association under its 

# ARKANSAS 

# COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV 

### No. CV-13-3 

### BANK OF

### THE OZARKS, 

### INC., and 

### BANK OF

### THE OZARKS APPELLANTS V. 

### ROBERT WALKER, 

### ANN B. 

### HINES, and

### JUDITH BELK APPELLEES Opinion Delivered September 78, 2073 APPEAL 

### FROM THE LONOKE 

### COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV -2011-777) 

### HONORABLE SANDY HUCKABEE, JUDGE REVERSED 

### AND REMANDED

### action 

### waiver, and a

### jury-trial waiver. Appellees 

### have

### filed 

### a class-action complaint, arguing that the bank had intentionally processed more expensive debit transactions first 

### in order

### to capitalize 

### on overdraft charges. 

### In lieu of an answer, the bank moved

### to compel 

### arbitration under

### the agreement. 

### However, 

### the circuit court 

### foundthat the arbitration provision was unconscionable and unenforceable and denied the bank's 

### motion to compel. -We 

### reviewthe circuit court's order denying a 

### motion 

### to compel de 

### novo on the 

### record. Aduance 

### Am. Seruicing oJ

### Ark., Inc. 

### u. McGinnis,375 

### Ark. 24,289 S.'W.3d 37 (2008). 

### In a de 

### novo review, 

### we reviewthe evidence andthe 

### law 

### without deference to the 

### trial court's rulings. Terminix 

### Int'l Co, 

### u.

### Tiuitt, 104

### Ark. App. 1,22,289 S.'w.3d 485 (2008). 

### Arbitrarion isstronglyfavored asa matter

### of public 

### policy asa less expensive and more expeditious means 

### of settling 

### litigation and relieving docket congestion 

### . CEI Eng'g Assocs. u. Elder Constr. Co., 2009

### Ark. App. 259, 306 S.W.3d 447. 

### In assessing whether a particular contract or provision is unconscionable, we review 

### the totaliry 

## of the circumstances 

### surrounding 

### the negotiation 

### and execution 

## of the contract. State ex rel. Bryant

### v. 

### R E

### A Inu. Co.,336

### Ark. 289, 985 

### S.'W.2d299 (1999). 

### Two important considerations arewhether there is a gross inequaliry of bargaining power between

### the parties 

### to the contract and whether the aggrieved parry was made aware

### of and comprehended the provision 

### in question. Id. 

### Here, the circuit court alsoconsidered additional factors that federal district courts 

### in Arkansas have applied regarding unconscionabiliry. 

### First,

## it considered 

### whether the

commercial rules.Judgment on any award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered 

### in any court havingjurisdiction.words were hidden 

### in a rnaze 

### offine 

### print and whether the agreed upon terms were 

### in a 

### prolix printed form drafted by the parry seeking to enforcethe disputed rerms. See Enderlin 

### u.

### XM Satellite Radio Holdings, 12r., 

### No. 4:06-CV-0032 

### GTE,2008 

### WL 830262 (E.D. 

### Ark. Mar. 

### 25,2008). Second, 

### the court considered 

### whether the arbitration provision's 

### terms 

### were "harsh, one-sided, 

## or oppressive." Cobeyn 

## u. Trauelers Indem. 

### Co., No. 1:09CV00034 

### JLH, 2009

### WL 3148755 

### (E.D. 

### Ark. Sept. 

### 24, 2009)."Whiie no Arkansas state case requires 

### it, the 

### circuit court appeared 

### to rule that the arbitration clausewas both substantively 

### and procedurally unconscionable.

### Without deciding whether 

### both are required, we hold that appellees failedto prove either one. First, the record lacks any evidence surroundingthe negotiations and execution

### of the deposit agreement. 

### No evidence,testimony, 

### or affidavits

### were presented, and the 

### court relied 

### only on the pleadings and arguments

### of counsel. Statements 

### by counsel are 

### not evidence. See Roberts u. Creen Bay Packaging, lnc.,101 

### Ark.App. 160, 

### 2725.W.3d 125 (2008). 

### Thus, the 

### court couid 

### not know whether appellees read 

### the deposit agreement, understood its cerms, 

### or any of the circumstances surrounding its execution. Second, there 

### is nothing unconscionable 

### about 

### the arbitration clause 

### itself. 

### Either parry can request arbitration, so the provision does 

### not oflend the mutualiry doctrine. SeeAsbury Auto. Used 

### Car 

### Ctr. u. Brosh,364 

### Ark. 386,391,,220 S.W.3d 

### 637,640-41 (2005) (holding that 

### "[m]utualiry 

### within the arbitration agreement icself 

### is required" and 

### that 

### "[a] lack 

### of mutuality

## to arbitrate 

## in arbitration clauses renders 

### the clauses

### void as

## to the bound 

### parry.").This belies the 

### circuit court's conclusion that the arbitration clause was one-sided because either parry could choose arbitration over acourtroom.

### In short, appellees presented no persuasive proof on the relevant unconscionabiliry considerations.Therefore, 

### it was error 

### for the 

### circuit court

### to deny the bank's 

### motion to 

### compel 

### on those grounds. Appellees 

### only presented counsel's arguments regarding the agreement's 

### execution. Those arguments 

### are

### not evidence. 

### Further, nothing 

## in the agreement itself is substantively 

### unconscionable-it contains 

### mutual promises, and either parfy can require arbitration. 

### lJnder 

### our de 

### novo review, 

### we reverse 

### the order denying 

### the 

### motion and remand

### the case

### for entry 

### of an 

### order compelling 

### arbitration. See

### CEI Eng'g, supra. 

### Finally, appellees argue, 

### for the 

### first time 

### on appeal, 

### that 

### no valid agreement to arbitrate even exists. 

## It istruethat 

### "[a] threshold 

### inquiry is whether an agreement to arbitrate exists; that is, whether there has been mutual agreement,

### with notice as

### to the terms and subsequent assen

### t." Alltel Corp. u. Sumner,360

### Ark. 573, 576,203 S.W.3 

### d 77, 

### 80 (2005). 

### But we do 

### not consider arguments raised

### for the first 

### time on appeal and

### will not address an argument on appeal rf a parry has failed

### to obtain a ruling below. Boellner u. Clinical Study

### Ctrs.,2011 

### Ark. 83,378 S.W.3d 745. 'Whether 

### an arbitration agreement exists was neither raised 

### nor ruled on 

### below, and we do 

### not consider 

### it now. See Gwin v. Daniels, 

### 357Ark. 623, 184 S.W.3d 

### 28 (2004) (stating

### that failure

## to obtain 

### a ruling precludes appellate 

### review because, 

### under appellate

### jurisdiction,

### we can 

### only review a 

### lower court's rulings 

### or orders). Reversed and remanded. GRrmnR and 

### HlxsoN,JJ., agree.