Opinion ID: 1917494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Has SouthTrust Met its Burden of Proof?

Text: The parties do not dispute that Edwards's checking account was governed by SouthTrust's deposit agreement, or that the deposit agreement included the arbitration agreement. Thus, SouthTrust established the existence of a contract calling for arbitration. SouthTrust also presented evidence concerning the effect of its banking activities on interstate commerce; the trial court held that SouthTrust had proved that the transaction had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. On appeal, the Fords do not challenge SouthTrust's assertion or the trial court's finding that the transaction at issue in this case had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Thus, the burden of persuasion shifted to the Fords to oppose SouthTrust's properly supported motion to compel arbitration.