On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, the South Carolina Court of Appeals published an opinion in Hall v. Green Tree Servicing. Cynthia Hall and her father, Ballentine, entered into a credit and sale contract with Green Tree to finance their purchase of a mobile home. The terms of the contract included an arbitration of disputes clause. Subsequently, Hall and Ballentine defaulted on the monthly payments causing Green Tree to repossess the home. Hall and Ballentine filed a complaint against Green Tree alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violation of claim and delivery proceeding and violation of notification provisions. The circuit court issued an order partially granting Green Tree’s motion to dismiss and found that it did not have SMJ over the claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because those claims were subject to mandatory arbitration. Additionally, the Court found the statutory claims were not subject to mandatory arbitration because the arbitration clause did not contain language indicating that Hall and Ballentine agreed to arbritrate those claims.
Green Tree Servicing, LLC appealed the circuit court’s order finding Cynthia Hall and Robert Ballentine’s statutory claims against Green Tree for violations of claim and delivery proceedings and notification provisions were not subject to mandatory arbitration.
This Court reversed the finding of the circuit court finding that the statutory claims are subject to mandatory arbitration.