Certegy Check Services v. Janice Fuller, 828 S.E.2d 89

Plaintiff Janice Fuller allegedly cashed two convenience checks in Nevada; defendants Certegy Check Services, Inc. and Complete Payment Recovery Services, Inc. sought to collect after returns and Fuller sued in Mercer County for invasion of privacy and WV Consumer Credit & Protection Act violations.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration under the parties’ alleged enrollment forms for a "VIP Preferred" program; the forms include an arbitration clause and copies bear what purports to be Fuller’s signature.
Defendants submitted affidavits asserting the forms were paper documents signed by participants; Fuller submitted an affidavit denying she was presented the documents and stating any signature was applied electronically at a card reader and was rushed.
The circuit court held a brief hearing, admitted competing affidavits, and entered an order denying the motion to compel arbitration but its order was internally inconsistent—stating both that Fuller did not agree to the contract and discussing unconscionability of the contract’s terms.
Defendants appealed the interlocutory denial of arbitration. The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and found the circuit court’s order lacked sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to permit meaningful appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists	Fuller: No agreement; she never was presented the enrollment forms and any signature was electronic and coerced	Defs: Enrollment forms were signed by Fuller; arbitration clause is part of the enrollment and enforceable	Court: Remanded — circuit court failed to make required factual findings resolving the competing affidavits and must determine existence of agreement and, if any, enforceability (e.g., unconscionability)
Whether the circuit court’s order needed detailed findings	Fuller: Order establishes no agreement so detail unnecessary	Defs: Court arguably found unconscionability; order’s discussion of terms shows substantive ruling	Court: A denial of a motion to compel arbitration must include findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the ruling; current order was insufficient

Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Front, 231 W. Va. 518 (recognizing interlocutory appealability of orders denying motions to compel arbitration)
Brown ex rel. Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 228 W. Va. 646 (state law governs whether party agreed to arbitrate; contract defenses apply)
Virginian Exp. Coal Co. v. Rowland Land Co., 100 W. Va. 559 (fundamentals of contract formation: competent parties, subject matter, consideration, mutual assent)
W. Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res. v. Payne, 231 W. Va. 563 (orders denying summary disposition on disputed facts must identify disputed material facts and competing evidence)
State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bedell, 228 W. Va. 252 (a court speaks through its written orders; ambiguous orders must be construed)