Kansas Courts Reluctant to Find Waiver of Arbitration
ABSTRACT: The Kansas Court of Appeals recently held that, even where a debt collector delayed its motion to compel arbitration until 2 years after the litigation was commenced, the trial court did not have the authority to decide that the delay was, in effect, a waiver of arbitration.
In Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Dixon, the Kansas Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s holding that a credit card debt collector had waived its right to arbitration by failing to file its motion to compel arbitration until 2 years after the subject litigation was filed against it. Dixon, the consumer, allegedly defaulted under the terms of her credit card agreement. Portfolio Recovery Associates (“Portfolio”) subsequently purchased the loan, and Portfolio brought suit in Rice County, Kansas, to recover the debt.
In November 2010, Dixon filed her answer, as well as a class-action counterclaim, whereby she alleged that Portfolio was improperly engaged in debt collection activities in Kansas without an appropriate license to do so. While Portfolio timely filed an answer with affirmative defenses, it did not, at that time, seek to compel arbitration. 2 years later, after protracted discovery had been conducted, Portfolio moved to compel arbitration and sought an order staying the proceedings, pursuant to the arbitration agreement set forth in the terms of the credit card agreement. Of note, the agreement contained a provision which stated:
“If you or we do not elect arbitration or otherwise enforce this Arbitration Provision in connection with any particular claim, you or we will not waive any rights to require arbitration in connection with that or any other claim.”
Dixon opposed the motion, and the trial court held found that Portfolio’s delay was, essentially, its waiver of the right to arbitrate. Portfolio appealed.
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court from BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina, 572 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 1198, 1206, 188 L. Ed. 2d 220 (2014), the Kansas Court of Appeals reasoned that the courts presume procedural issues concerning arbitration will be decided by the arbitrator, not by the court. Such procedural matters include claims of waiver, delay, or other like defenses to a motion to compel arbitration. Therefore, it would ultimately be the decision of an arbitrator to decide whether or not the debt collector had waived any procedural right to resolve the claims through arbitration, even if the subject credit card agreement had not contained the aforementioned waiver provision.
The Court’s decision to defer this procedural determination to an arbitrator in an instance where not only did the party seeking to compel arbitration initiate the litigation, but where that party also delayed its request to arbitrate until after years of litigation had passed, demonstrates the gravity of arbitration provisions in contracts and the need for parties to consider their options before entering into such agreements.
related services
About Kansas Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Kansas Law Blog examines significant developments, trends and changes in Kansas law on a broad range of topics that are of interest to Kansas practitioners and to businesses evaluating risks under Kansas law or managing litigation subject to Kansas law.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Kansas Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Kansas Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Kansas Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.