Opinion ID: 1903751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Huntley's Appeal

Text: We first address a specific argument made by Regions Bank in regard to the arbitration issue. The bank argues that Huntley did not properly invoke the arbitration agreement because, among other things, he failed to pay the proper filing fee under the AAA's Commercial Arbitration Rules. This Court has previously addressed this specific argument, in Ex parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, Inc., 718 So.2d 33, 36 (Ala.1998): Rule 6 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules states that `the initiating party (hereinafter claimant)' shall file the `appropriate filing fee' as mandated in the schedule accompanying the rules. That same rule later explains that after the `claimant' has stated the nature of the dispute, the respondent shall file an answering statement and send that statement to the claimant. The word `claimant' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.1990) as `[o]ne who claims or asserts a right, demand, or claim.' The word `respondent' is defined in Black's as `one who makes an answer to a bill or other proceeding in equity' or one `who contends against an appeal.' Considering these words in light of their plain meaning, we conclude that the `claimant' is the party who makes a demand upon another party and that the `respondent' is the party who must answer the allegations. If we apply these general definitions to the facts of this case, it would be awkward to interpret the Commercial Arbitration Rules to mean that [the defendant] is the claimant. Such an interpretation would force [the defendant] to state the nature of the claims against itself. Equally as awkward, this interpretation would then force [the plaintiff] to answer the very complaint that he filed against [the defendant]. It is unreasonable to believe that the parties in this case intended to apply the terms `initiating party' and `claimant' to [the defendant], the party defending itself against a claim by [the plaintiff]. Judging from the plain meaning of these labels as they are used in the Rules and from what the parties intended by the terms `claimant' and `initiating party,' it is clear that [the plaintiff] is the claimant and [the defendant] is the respondent. See also Universal Underwriters Life Ins. Co. v. Dutton, 736 So.2d 564, 570 (Ala.1999)(plaintiffs were the claimants or the initiating party, and Rule 48 of the AAA's Commercial Arbitration Rules required the claimants to pay the required filing fees, although the rule also allowed the arbitrator to make a final apportionment of the filing fees in his award.) We therefore disagree with the bank's argument that Huntley would be required to pay the filing fee. Regions Bank, as the plaintiff, would be the proper party to pay the filing fee if the arbitration clause were properly invoked. Accordingly, we consider Huntley's arguments challenging the trial court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. [2] Our standard for reviewing a denial of a motion to compel arbitration is well settled. In reviewing a trial court's refusal to compel arbitration, this Court's review is de novo. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc. v. Bruner-Wells Trucking, Inc., 745 So.2d 271, 273 (Ala.1999). This Court has also succinctly set out the burden of proof that a party moving to compel arbitration must satisfy: A motion to compel arbitration is analogous to a motion for a summary judgment. The party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of a contract calling for arbitration and proving that that contract involves a transaction affecting interstate commerce. Once such a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing arbitration to present some evidence indicating that there is no arbitration agreement subject to specific enforcement under the FAA. If the party opposing arbitration presents sufficient evidence to create a fact question as to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, then the issue must be resolved by the trial court or by a jury, if one is requested. Ex parte Caver, 742 So.2d 168, 172 n. 4 (Ala.1999). (Citation omitted.) Although Huntley arguably satisfied the requirement of proving the existence of a contract calling for arbitration, he made no showing that the contract evidenced a transaction affecting interstate commerce. Because of this failure, the trial court properly denied his motion to compel arbitration. [3] This Court must affirm the denial of a motion to compel arbitration when the movant has made no showing of a transaction involving interstate commerce. See Tefco Fin. Co. v. Green, 793 So.2d 755 (Ala.2001); and Rogers Foundation Repair, Inc. v. Powell, 748 So.2d 869, 872 (Ala.1999). In his brief, Huntley makes no argument that the trial court otherwise improperly entered the summary judgment, outside the context of his arbitration arguments. Although the trial court made no specific findings in denying Huntley's motion to compel arbitration or in granting Regions Bank's motion for summary judgment, `[w]e can affirm a judgment on a basis not asserted to the trial court, and we can affirm a judgment if we disagree with the reasoning of the trial court in entering the judgment, as long as the judgment itself is proper.' Verchot v. General Motors Corp., [Ms. 1992300, May 25, 2001] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.2001)(quoting Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Hammonds, 551 So.2d 333, 337 (Ala.1989), and citing Smith v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 537 So.2d 463, 465 (Ala.1988)). Therefore, the trial court's denial of Huntley's motion to compel arbitration and the summary judgment for Regions Bank are due to be affirmed.