Find Legal Information

SECOND DIVISION
JULY 27, 2004

This interlocutory appeal stems from the trial court'sdenial of the defendant's, Woodfield Nissan, Inc. (Woodfield),motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. In July 2002, theplaintiff, Nadejda Vassilkovska, purchased a used automobile fromWoodfield. In addition to the sales contract, the plaintiffsigned an arbitration agreement (Arbitration Agreement). InFebruary 2003, the plaintiff filed a four-count complaint againstWoodfield. In April 2003, Woodfield filed a motion to dismissand compel arbitration. In May 2003, the trial court heardarguments on Woodfield's motion and denied it. Thisinterlocutory appeal followed with Woodfield seeking reversal ofthe trial court's May 2003 order denying Woodfield's motion tocompel arbitration.

BACKGROUND

In July 2002, the plaintiff purchased a used 2000 NissanSentra from Woodfield. The purchase contract, signed by bothparties, indicated an "unpaid balance" of $4,598.44. Theplaintiff also signed an Arbitration Agreement. In pertinentpart the parties' Arbitration Agreement stated:

"That in consideration for youragreement to this Arbitration Agreement, wehereby waive any and all rights to pursue anylegal action in a court of law, with theexception of those actions specificallyexcluded herein. ***

A 'Dispute' is any controversy or claim(other than: a claim relating to the buyer'sfailure to pay an agreed upon down payment orfailure to pay any amount due pursuant to apromissory note executed in lieu of a cashdown payment: as to the issuance, by buyer,of a check which is not honored by thebuyer's bank; a buyer's failure to providegood title to a trade-in vehicle; amisrepresentation, by buyer, concerning theamount remaining due on any loan concerning atrade-in vehicle; any claim relating to thepossession, repossession or replevin of thevehicle; or relating to actions to enforceany Retail Installment Contract executed byyou in connection with the purchase of thevehicle) arising from or relating to thevehicle you have purchased from us on thedate shown above. *** The term 'dispute' alsoincludes any questions regarding whether amatter is subject to arbitration under thisArbitration Agreement."

Basically, in the parties' Arbitration Agreement the plaintiffagreed to waive her right to pursue any cause of action, relatedto the sales transaction for the car, in a court of law. Inturn, Woodfield agreed to waive all rights to pursue any legalaction in a court of law, except for the following enumeratedclaims: (1) the plaintiff's failure to pay according to thepurchase contract; (2) the plaintiff's check not being honored byher bank; (3) the plaintiff's failure to provide good title on atrade-in vehicle; (4) the plaintiff's misrepresentationconcerning the loan amount due on any trade-in vehicle; (5) anyclaim relating to possession, repossession, or replevin of theautomobile; and (6) any action to enforce any retail installmentcontract executed by the purchaser.

Sometime later, the plaintiff received a financing agreementfrom her lender that indicated an unpaid balance of $7,235.12 onher vehicle. The plaintiff noticed a $2,636.68 discrepancybetween the "amount due" on the purchase contract and on thefinancing agreement. In February 2003, the plaintiff filed afour-count complaint against Woodfield alleging a violation ofthe Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act(815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.) (West 2000)), common law fraud, aviolation of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C.