Opinion ID: 1630266
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether performance toyota waived its right to arbitration.

Text: ¶ 15. Russell argues that, if the arbitration clause is valid, Performance Toyota has waived its right to arbitration by its actions of seizing the Toyota Tacoma [Russell] purchased ... and selling the T-100 that Performance [Toyota] claims is a `trade-in.' Performance Toyota took actions on [its] own and did not arbitrate its claims.... In support of his argument, Russell cites Cox v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Friedrichs, Inc., 619 So.2d 908, 911 (Miss.1993), in which we held that a party waives arbitration if it substantially takes advantage of the judicial process, and Subway Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Forte, 169 F.3d 324, 326 (5th Cir.1999), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that, to establish a waiver, the objector to arbitration must establish that a party seeking arbitration substantially invokes the judicial process to the detriment or prejudice of the other party. ¶ 16. A [w]aiver of arbitration is not a favored finding, and there is a presumption against it. Miller Brewing Co. v. Fort Worth Distrib. Co., 781 F.2d 494, 497 (5th Cir.1986); see also Subway Equip., 169 F.3d at 326 ([A] party alleging waiver of arbitration must carry a heavy burden.) ¶ 17. We note that, even though Performance Toyota took possession of the Tacoma, it never instituted legal proceedings against Russell. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (adopted in Mississippi as Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-609 (2002)), when a debtor has defaulted, a secured party has the right to take possession of the collateral without using judicial process. The cases cited by Russell which hold that a right to arbitration was waived all involved the institution of legal proceedings in court and the party which invoked arbitration had filed pleadings and motions and had participated in discovery. See, e.g., Subway Equip., 169 F.3d at 328; Price v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 791 F.2d 1156 (5th Cir.1986); Cox, 619 So.2d at 914. Here, Performance Toyota's only overt act in the legal proceedings filed against it was to file a motion to compel arbitration. ¶ 18. Other jurisdictions addressing this issue have held that taking possession of the collateral or other similar actions do not waive a party's right to arbitration. See, e.g., Southwest Indus. Imp. & Exp., Inc. v. Wilmod Co., 524 F.2d 468, 470 (5th Cir.1975) (seller-mover's participation in settlement discussions and self-help measure of reselling goods in dispute did not amount to waiver of contractual right to arbitrate); Eagle Telecom, Inc. v. Billing Concepts Sys., Inc., 1999 WL 570860  (E.D.Pa.1999) (unilateral discontinuance of services under an agreement does not result in waiver of right to arbitration); Ex parte Dickinson, 711 So.2d 984, 988 (Ala. 1998) (Dickinson's claim that the dealership should have allowed the repossessed vehicle to remain in his possession pending arbitration confuses self-help with `judicial process.' [S]elf-help is not `judicial process,' and we decline to extend the rule to encompass self-help.); Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp. v. Wilder, 47 S.W.3d 335, 345 (Ky.Ct.App.2001) (Lender did not waive its right to arbitration by pursuing repossession of mobile home because repossession was not for purpose of gaining tactical advantage with respect to court proceedings.); ¶ 19. This claim is without merit.