Opinion ID: 1856010
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Court has written:

Text: [W]hen a party claims fraud in the inducement relating to the validity of the arbitration clause itself, an issue that goes to the `making' of the agreement to arbitrate, a court may adjudicate that claim; however, if the claim of fraud in the inducement actually bears upon the entire agreement and upon the activities of the parties in general, then an arbitrator, rather than a court, should adjudicate that claim, examining the making of the contract in its entirety. Anniston Lincoln Mercury Dodge v. Conner, 720 So.2d 898, 901 (Ala.1998). In Conner, the plaintiff claimed to be challenging the validity of an arbitration provision in a contract, 720 So.2d at 901, arguing that her inability to understand English prevented her from effectively assenting to that clause. Id. The trial court agreed and found that the plaintiffs inability to under-stand the English language had caused the parties not to reach a meeting of the minds as to the agreement to arbitrate. Id. at 900. We reversed the trial court's order, stating that we must look beyond the ad hoc arguments of counsel in order to determine whether [the plaintiffs] claim actually bears upon the entire agreement or just the arbitration clause. Id. at 901-02. Accordingly, we determined that the plaintiffs claim concerned the making of the contract in its entirety, rather than just... the arbitration clause itself, and held that arbitration should have been compelled. Id. at 902. The facts of Conner were somewhat similar to the facts of this case. The plaintiff in Conner argued that she had been unable to understand provisions of the contract. In her brief to this Court, Billie Jo has questioned whether Tony Lee Paramore[, given his fourth-grade reading level,] possessed the requisite contractual capacity to assent to the terms and conditions of the brokerage agreements containing the arbitration provisions.  (Emphasis supplied.) Billie Jo argues that Paramore could not understand the brokerage contracts and could not understand the arbitration provisions within those contracts. Therefore, Billie Jo's argument clearly concerned the making of the contracts, and, in accordance with Conner, the question whether Tony Paramore could understand the contracts and their provisions would be for the arbitrator to decide. If the trial court based its denial of arbitration on this ground, then it erred and it is instructed to compel arbitration.