Burnip v. Credit Acceptance Corporation

Background

Credit Acceptance Corporation asked the court to compel arbitration based on an alleged retail installment contract that contained an arbitration agreement. Burnip repeatedly asserted that the signatures presented by the defendants were not hers and were forgeries. Credit Acceptance did not address those allegations in its written submissions.

The matter had been referred to the undersigned for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Burnip requested a hearing, and the court determined that written submissions alone could not resolve the factual dispute about whether she signed the contract.

Ruling

The court granted Burnip’s motion requesting a hearing. It ordered an evidentiary hearing on December 12, 2018, limited to the validity of Burnip’s purported signature on the retail installment contract containing the arbitration clause. The parties would be permitted to present testimony and documentary evidence on that issue.

The order did not decide whether the arbitration agreement was valid or whether the case would ultimately be sent to arbitration. It only required a hearing to resolve the disputed fact about contract formation.

Volunteer Counsel

The court stated that Burnip, the court, and the defendants would benefit from counsel’s participation because the hearing could involve witness testimony, cross-examination, and documentary evidence. The court identified Scott M. Flaherty as a volunteer attorney willing to enter a limited appearance for Burnip. Any representation would end when the evidentiary hearing concluded. If Burnip did not accept his assistance, she would still be required to attend and conduct the hearing herself.