Court Opinion

ID: 9690454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:13:36.623635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:57.220276
License: Public Domain

Larry D. Vaught, Judge, concurring. I join in Judge GrifFen’s majority opinion but write separately to affirm my belief that MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Gilbert, 100 Ark. App. 221, 266 S.W.3d 229 (2007), remains good law and is easily distinguishable from both this case and Danner v. MBNA American Bank, 369 Ark. 435, 255 S.W.3d 863 (2007). All of these cases are decided under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 (“FAA”), not state law. In neither the case at bar nor Danner did the cardholders admit that they participated in the arbitration proceedings in any form. To the contrary, as we pointed out in Gilbert, the distinguishing characteristic of that case was that Gilbert admitted that he participated in the arbitration proceedings — albeit protesting all along the existence of an arbitration agreement. He admitted that he filed a written response to the arbitrator, that he received notice of the arbitration award, and that he objected to the award by letter to MBNA. However, Gilbert did not petition the court to set aside the award within ninety days as required by the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 12 (2000). Because he participated in the arbitration, he waived any defenses he might have had by not following the time requirements set forth in the FAA. See MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Exalon Indus., Inc., 138 F.3d 426, 430-31 (1st Cir. 1998). I am authorized to state that Judge Glover joins this opinion.