Opinion ID: 1755722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Modas's Arguments

Text: Modas argues that, when the retail installment contract could not be assigned, the entire contract, i.e., all the related documents, became void. As authority for her argument, she relies upon Ex parte Payne, 741 So.2d 398 (Ala.1999). However, the contract language at issue in Ex parte Payne is distinguishable from that here. In Ex parte Payne, Payne attempted to buy a vehicle from Jay Pontiac GMC Truck Mitsubishi, Inc. She signed various documents, including a retail purchase order, and took the vehicle home. Included in the language of the purchase order was an agreement to arbitrate. The purchase order also included the following language: [T]he Purchaser(s) [sic] offer is not accepted and the transaction is not consummated until (a) approved in writing by Dealer and a responsible Bank or Finance Company.... 741 So.2d at 400 (emphasis omitted). Payne's credit application was subsequently declined, and a dispute arose between Jay Pontiac and Payne regarding the return of the vehicle. Jay Pontiac pursued legal action to recover the vehicle, which was eventually returned to Jay Pontiac by order of the trial court. Payne counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract, fraud and deceit, suppression, conversion, fraud in the inducement, and negligence. Jay Pontiac filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court granted that motion. Payne filed a petition for writ of mandamus, and this Court held that the purchase contract was not binding because the condition precedent contained in that contract had not been fulfilled. The Court held that the language the Purchaser(s) [sic] offer is not accepted and the transaction is not consummated until (a) approved in writing by Dealer and a responsible Bank or Finance Company was a condition precedent to the formation of a binding contract. Because it was undisputed that Payne's credit application had not been approved, the condition precedent had not occurred and, by the express terms of the retail purchase order, no binding contract was created. Therefore, the Court held, Jay Pontiac was not entitled to compel arbitration of Payne's claims. In this case, however, assignment of the retail installment contract was not a strict condition precedent to continuation of the parties' agreement in this case as it was in Ex parte Payne, supra. Dan Wachtel Ford and Modas agreed that, if the retail installment contract could not be assigned, that document would be void, and, upon the happening of that event, Modas either would pay cash for the Explorer or would return it. The parties in Ex parte Payne made no such agreement. Therefore, Modas's reliance upon Ex parte Payne is misplaced. Modas next argues that the language of the arbitration agreement is not sufficiently broad in scope to encompass her claims. We reject this argument. Modas sued Dan Wachtel Ford alleging conversion of her 1999 Cougar, trespass to her personal property, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The claims alleging conversion and trespass arise directly out of her purchase transaction with Dan Wachtel Ford; Modas's claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process arise out of actions taken by Dan Wachtel Ford upon Modas's refusal to return the Explorer. All these claims are claim[s] ... resulting from or arising out of or relating to or concerning the transaction entered into and, therefore, they are encompassed within the scope of Modas's agreement to arbitrate.