Fabian v. Renovate America, Inc.
Filed 11/19/19; Certified for Publication 12/4/19 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking to compel arbitration based on a contract with a disputed electronic signature bears the burden of proving the signature's authenticity by a preponderance of the evidence. This burden is not met by merely presenting the e-signed document and a conclusory declaration; the proponent must offer specific evidence detailing the electronic signing process and identity verification.
Facts:
- In early 2017, Renovate America, Inc. (Renovate) contacted Rosa Fabian via an unsolicited telephone call about financing solar panels for her home.
- All communications between Fabian and Renovate's representative occurred over the phone.
- Fabian asserts she was never presented with any documents to sign, either physically or electronically, and did not sign the financial agreement Renovate presented.
- Renovate produced an 'Assessment Contract' containing an arbitration clause, which appeared to bear the electronic signature of 'Rosa Fabian' and initials 'RF'.
- The signature block on the contract included the words 'DocuSigned by:' and 'Identity Verification Code: ID Verification Complete'.
- Following the alleged signing, Renovate incorporated payments for the solar panels into Fabian's mortgage loan payments.
Procedural Posture:
- Rosa Fabian sued Renovate America, Inc. in the Superior Court of San Diego County (trial court).
- Renovate filed a petition to compel arbitration, attaching a copy of the contract allegedly signed by Fabian.
- Fabian filed an opposition, declaring that she never signed the contract electronically or otherwise.
- The trial court permitted discovery on the issue of the signature's authenticity.
- After reviewing supplemental briefs and declarations, the trial court denied Renovate's petition to compel arbitration, finding Renovate failed to establish that Fabian electronically signed the contract.
- Renovate (Appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (intermediate appellate court), where Fabian is the Respondent.
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 party seeking to compel arbitration meet its burden of proving the authenticity of a disputed electronic signature by a preponderance of the evidence when it provides the signed document and a declaration that summarily asserts the contract was 'entered into,' but offers no specific evidence detailing the signature and verification process?
Opinions:
Majority - Irion, J.
No. A party fails to meet its burden to prove the authenticity of a disputed electronic signature when it offers only the signed document and a conclusory declaration without specific evidence of the signing process. Although Renovate met its initial burden by producing the contract, the burden shifted back to Renovate to prove the signature's authenticity by a preponderance of the evidence after Fabian denied signing it. Renovate's evidence—the contract itself and a declaration from its employee, Mike Anderson, who 'summarily asserted' Fabian 'entered into' the contract—was insufficient. Citing Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc., the court found Anderson's declaration provided no specific facts about the signing process, such as how the contract was sent to Fabian, how her identity was verified, or how the DocuSign process ensured the signature was her act. The mere presence of the word 'DocuSign' and an un-explained verification code is not self-authenticating. Without evidence explaining the circumstances of the contract's execution and verification, Renovate left a 'critical gap' in its evidence and failed to carry its burden of proof.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the evidentiary standard required to authenticate a disputed electronic signature in the context of a motion to compel arbitration. It serves as a warning to companies relying on e-signature platforms that they cannot assume such signatures are self-authenticating. The decision establishes that the proponent of the signature must be prepared to present specific, foundational evidence about the security protocols, identity verification, and the audit trail of the specific transaction if the signature's validity is challenged. This reinforces that contract formation, including the validity of a signature, is a threshold issue for the court and protects individuals from being bound by arbitration clauses in contracts they deny signing.
