Court Opinion

ID: 9748638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:08:47.115569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:37.921726
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I.
This case involves a collision between two valid public policy goals — consumer protection and freedom of contract. It is appropriate to regulate business interests from exploiting unwary, unsophisticated consumers. Yet Missouri law also recognizes the great value of freedom of contract, where parties may bargain both price and terms to their mutual benefit and then are held accountable for the agreement made.
The majority opinion holds that the class arbitration waiver in the title loan contract is unconscionable and then strikes the arbitration agreement in its entirety because it “effectively immunized” the lender from liability. I dissent because Ms. Brewer did not establish that the contract, and the *25arbitration agreement contained therein, was procedurally unconscionable or that the class action waiver was substantively unconscionable.
II.
The Federal Arbitration Act instructs states to enforce arbitration clauses unless they can be invalidated by ordinary contract principles: “An agreement to arbitrate is valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, as a matter of federal law, save upon such grounds as exist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. sec. 2. However, Missouri courts will not enforce unconscionable contracts. Woods v. QC Financial Services, Inc., 280 S.W.3d 90, 99 (Mo.App.2008); Kansas City Urology P.A. v. United Healthcare Services, 261 S.W.3d 7, 14 (Mo.App.2008); Whitney v. Alltel Communications, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 300, 308 (Mo.App.2005); Swain v. Auto Services, Inc., 128 S.W.3d 103, 107 (Mo.App.2003). An unconscionable contract is an agreement “no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other.” Smith v. Kriska, 113 S.W.3d 293, 298 (Mo.App.2003).1
Section 400.2-302(1), RSMo, provides that
If the court as a matter of law finds that the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.
This statute has been used to guide Missouri courts in making determinations of unconscionability regarding arbitration agreements. Vincent v. Schneider, 194 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. banc 2006). As in any ordinary contract analysis, the parties’ intentions control. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1763, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985)); Dunn Industrial Group Inc. v. City of Sugar Creek, 112 S.W.3d 421, 428 (Mo. banc 2003) (“The usual rules and canons of contract interpretation govern the ... validity of an arbitration clause”).
III.
Under Missouri law, a contract will not be voided for unconscionability unless it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Lawrence v. Beverly Manor, 273 S.W.3d 525, 531 (Mo. banc 2009) (Norton, J., concurring); Repair Masters Const., Inc. v. Gang, 277 S.W.3d 854, 858 (Mo.App.2009); Shaffer v. Royal Gate Dodge, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 556, 559 (Mo.App.2009); Kansas City Urology, 261 S.W.3d at 15-16; Woods, 280 S.W.3d at 95; Whitney, 173 S.W.3d at 308; Funding Systems Leasing Corp. v. King Louie International, 597 S.W.2d 624, 634 (Mo.App.1979); Cicle v. Chase Bank USA, 583 F.3d 549, 554 (8th Cir.2009); Pleasants v. American Express Company, 541 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir.2008). Procedural unconscionability deals with the formalities of making the contract (such as high pressure sales tactics, unreadable fíne print, or misrepresentation). This analysis focuses on whether the parties had a voluntary and sufficient meeting of the minds to bind each other to the terms of the wilting. Substantive un-conscionability deals with the terms of the contract itself (such as whether the terms are unduly harsh). This analysis focuses on whether the terms are so one sided that *26they are unenforceable as a matter of public policy. State ex rel. Vincent v. Schneider, 194 S.W.3d 853, 858 (Mo. banc 2006) (citing Bracey v. Monsanto Co. Inc., 823 S.W.2d 946, 950 (Mo. banc 1992)).2 Courts are rightly hesitant to substitute their judgment for that of freely acting parties. That is why a showing of procedural unconscionability is necessary — it flags circumstances in which one of the parties may not have freely consented to the bargain.
The majority argues that Vincent discarded the long-standing Missouri requirement of procedural unconscionability for invalidating a contract or the entirety of an arbitration agreement. Vincent did not go so far.
In Vincent, this Court found that plaintiffs had not proven that the contract was unenforceable as an adhesion contract. Id. at 857-58. The Court also refused to impose a mutuality requirement or strike the arbitration agreement as a whole. Id. at 859. Taking guidance from section 400.2-302, the Court then proceeded to determine that two sub-parts of the arbitration agreement, a cost-shifting provision and a provision governing selection of the arbiter, were unconscionable. Id. at 863. The rest of the arbitration agreement, however, was enforced. Id. at 861.
While Vincent did strike two sub-parts of the arbitration agreement, it did not disturb the Missouri requirement that a contract or an arbitration agreement be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable before a court will void either in its entirety. Cicle, 583 F.3d at 554 (citing Whitney, 173 S.W.3d at 308) (“Before a contract will be deemed unenforceable on the grounds of unconscionability, a court applying Missouri law must find it both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.”). In Vincent, the Court enforced the basic agreement of the parties to arbitrate, merely blue-penciling the substantively unconscionable provisions. See, e.g., Mid-States Paint & Chemical Co. v. Herr, 746 S.W.2d 613, 616 (Mo.App.1988) (citing R.E. Harrington Inc. v. Frick, 428 S.W.2d 945 (Mo.App.1968)) (“Under the blue pencil doctrine, if a restrictive covenant contains words which are unreasonable limitations and if stricken would leave a reasonable contract, the court may ‘blue pencil’ or strike those words out.”); Sigma Chemical Co. v. Harris, 794 F.2d 371 (8th Cir.1986).
To determine whether an agreement is procedurally unconscionable, an examination of the process is necessary. Whitney, 173 S.W.3d at 308. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence that Missouri Title Loans engaged in coercive or high-pressure sales tactics. There is evidence, however, that the class arbitration waiver was in all caps and in bold font. The fact that Ms. Brewer thought it was “not important” for her to read the loan agreement before signing it does not mean that the process was procedurally unfair. See, e.g., Vincent, 194 S.W.3d at 857 (“Relators cannot simply allege [unconscionability] and offer no other proof on the matter.”).
Undoubtedly, Missouri Title Loans was in a better bargaining position than Ms. Brewer. Undoubtedly, the loan agreement between Missouri Title Loans and Ms. Brewer was a non-negotiated form contract. However, not all non-negotiated form contracts are unconscionable contracts of adhesion. Cicle, 583 F.3d at 554 (“These sorts of take-it-or-leave-it agreements between businesses and consumers *27are used all the time in today’s business world. If they were all deemed to be unconscionable and unenforceable ... or if individual negotiation were required to make them enforceable, much of commerce would screech to a halt”). When a party offers no proof that she was unable to look elsewhere for a more attractive contract, or that all the area’s title loan companies use the same class arbitration waivers, this Court ought not invalidate the parties’ freely entered-into agreement. Id.; Vincent, 194 S.W.3d at 857 (the weaker party must show she was unable to look elsewhere for a better option); Robin v. Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Mo. banc 1982). Here, Brewer stated that there was nothing stopping her from looking elsewhere for a loan agreement with different or more favorable terms. In fact, before dealing with Missouri Title Loans, she compiled a list of 20 competing companies that offered the same services. Ms. Brewer nowhere claimed that all of these companies used the same standard form contract or that they included the same class arbitration waiver in their agreements. Ms. Brewer failed to prove that the contract she decided to enter into with Missouri Title Loans was procedurally unconscionable.
To the extent that the majority opinion invalidates the entire arbitration agreement in this case, without requiring a showing of procedural unconscionability, it departs from Missouri law.
IV.
Admittedly, the majority does not invalidate the arbitration clause in one step. Instead, it argues a two-step analysis. First, the majority determines that the class action prohibition in the arbitration clause is substantively unconscionable because it deprives plaintiffs of a practical remedy. And second, because the newly decided Supreme Court case of Stolt-Niel-sen refuses to allow class arbitration unless it is expressly provided for in an arbitration agreement, the majority concludes that the entire arbitration agreement must go. I disagree with both steps of the argument.
A.
The initial amount in controversy in this case approximated $4,000. This amount continues to increase as interest accrues. In addition, there are possible penalties and fees that might be collected on Ms. Brewer’s behalf. Despite the testimony of Ms. Brewer’s expert witnesses, this is not an amount that can be considered de min-imis as a matter of law. The removal of Ms. Brewer’s right to arbitrate on a class basis may diminish her bargaining power and may diminish the amount of attorney’s fees available, but it does not substantively or practically bar her from an adequate remedy for any harm she has suffered. Charles v. Spradling,. 524 S.W.2d 820, 824 (Mo.1975), is directly on point in this regard and directly contrary to the argument set out in the majority opinion.
B.
The majority opinion also draws an unwarranted conclusion from Stolt-Nielsen. StolP-Nielsen simply holds that when an arbitration agreement is silent with respect to class arbitration, the parties cannot be compelled to class arbitration. Rather, arbitration must proceed on an individual basis. 130 S.Ct. at 1776. Stolt-Nielsen does not hold that state courts may no longer sever class waivers without voiding the entire arbitration agreement. In fact, the Supreme Court does not disfavor agreements that compel individual arbitration in any way. To the contrary, individual arbitration is the default. According to Stoltr-Nielsen, if the parties do *28not in some way demonstrate an affirmative intent to engage in class arbitration, they will proceed to individual arbitration. Clearly, then, the Supreme Court is not instructing state courts to invalidate in its entirety any arbitration agreement that provides for individual arbitration, especially where arbitration — -in some form— was contemplated by the parties. The driving rationale of Stolt-Nielsen is to give effect to the parties’ intent. At a circuit court hearing in this case, Ms. Brewer’s counsel stated: “I’ll be very clear. We are not fighting arbitration.” Because the majority invalidates the entire arbitration agreement, its result (class action litigation) is actually contrary to the result reached in Stolt-Nielsen (individual arbitration).
V.
Finally, class waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable. Woods, 280 S.W.3d at 98; Ross-Langford v. Mercantile Town Mut. Ins. Co., 97 Mo.App. 79, 71 S.W. 720, 723 (1902). The Eighth Circuit has twice upheld this proposition, see Cicle v. Chase Bank, USA, 583 F.3d 549 (8th Cir.2009), and Pleasants v. American Exp. Co., 541 F.3d 853 (8th Cir.2008), as has the Third Circuit in Gay v. CreditInform, 511 F.3d 369 (3rd Cir.2007). And in general, Missouri has a preference for arbitration. Dunn Industrial Group Inc. v. City of Sugar Creek, 112 S.W.3d 421, 428 (Mo. banc 2003). I recognize that there are valid reasons to balance the bargaining power between strong business interests and relatively weak individual consumers, especially in the small loan industry where difficult circumstances often drive what appear to be one-sided deals. However, consumer protection measures always come at a price. Additional business or litigation costs for the small loan industry may result in even higher rates being charged to credit-challenged borrowers or their abandonment of this high risk market altogether. This type of public policy balancing is best left to the legislature and not to the courts. See, e.g., § 407.025 of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. I would enforce the arbitration agreement.

. It is not clear what definition of "uncon-scionability” the majority is using.

. A 300 percent interest rate in any loan agreement is certainly suspect. However, that is not the issue before us.