Beneficial National Bank, U.S.A. v. Payton

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
214 F. Supp. 2d 679 (2001)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A mandatory arbitration clause may be validly added to an existing consumer credit agreement if the original agreement contains a 'change-in-terms' provision, the company provides notice of the change, and the consumer is given an opportunity to reject the change but fails to do so. A broadly worded arbitration clause covering disputes 'arising from or relating to' the parties' relationship can apply retroactively to claims that arose before the clause was added.

Facts:

In April 1995, Obie Payton purchased a home satellite system and financed it through a revolving credit card account with Beneficial National Bank, U.S.A.
Payton signed a credit application acknowledging he had read and agreed to the attached Cardholder Agreement.
The original Cardholder Agreement contained a 'Change in Terms' clause stating, 'We may change the terms of this Agreement with respect to both existing balances and future purchases.'
In 1996, Beneficial sent a notice to its cardholders, including Payton, stating that a mandatory arbitration provision was being added to the agreement.
The notice informed cardholders that the change would be effective in 30 days unless they notified Beneficial in writing within that period that they did not accept the change.
Payton did not notify Beneficial that he rejected the new arbitration provision.
In May 1999, Payton's account was assigned to Household Bank, and cardholders were notified of the assignment.

Procedural Posture:

Obie Payton filed suit against Beneficial National Bank and Household Bank in the Circuit Court of Kemper County, Mississippi (a state trial court), alleging fraudulent misrepresentation.
Beneficial and Household filed a separate action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (a federal trial court) seeking to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Payton moved to dismiss the federal action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the court initially denied.
The state court entered an order staying its proceedings pending the resolution of the federal case.
Payton filed a second motion to dismiss the federal action, arguing that his proposed amendment in state court to lower his damages demand below $75,000 eliminated federal diversity jurisdiction.
Beneficial and Household filed a motion in federal court to compel arbitration, which is the subject of this opinion.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a mandatory arbitration clause, added to a credit card agreement via a 'change-in-terms' notice that the cardholder did not reject, validly bind the cardholder to arbitrate claims that arose from the original transaction before the clause was added?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge Tom S. Lee

Yes. A mandatory arbitration clause added to a credit card agreement via a 'change-in-terms' notice binds a cardholder who fails to reject it, and the clause can apply retroactively to disputes arising before its addition. The court reasoned that the original Cardholder Agreement unambiguously permitted Beneficial to 'change the terms of this Agreement.' The court found no meaningful distinction between 'changing' a term and 'adding' a new one, thus concluding that adding the arbitration provision was within the contractual rights of the bank. Because Beneficial provided Payton with clear notice and an explicit opportunity to 'opt out' of the arbitration clause, his failure to do so constituted acceptance, making the clause a valid part of their contract. Furthermore, the clause's broad language, covering any claim 'arising from or relating to this Agreement or the relationships which result from this Agreement,' was deemed sufficient to encompass Payton's claims, even though the underlying transaction predated the arbitration provision. The court, citing precedent like Belke and Zink, held that such broad language focuses on the parties' relationship rather than the timing of the dispute, thus justifying retroactive application.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the enforceability of arbitration clauses added to consumer contracts through unilateral 'change-in-terms' provisions, a common industry practice. It underscores the low threshold for consumer assent, treating a failure to opt-out as valid acceptance of a significant change to legal rights. The ruling solidifies the principle that, under the Federal Arbitration Act's policy favoring arbitration, broadly worded clauses will be interpreted to apply retroactively, capturing disputes that were not subject to arbitration when they arose. This precedent makes it more difficult for consumers to challenge the addition of arbitration clauses after the fact and strengthens the ability of financial institutions to divert disputes from the court system.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Beneficial National Bank, U.S.A. v. Payton (2001)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature