GMAC v. Pittella
17 A.3d 177
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Pittella financed a Pine Belt car purchase and signed an arbitration agreement with AAA procedures; Pine Belt assigned the contract to GMAC.
- GMAC repossessed the car in 2008 and sued Pittella for deficiency; Pittella counterclaimed and filed a third‑party complaint against Pine Belt alleging fraud, unconscionability, and a putative class action.
- The Law Division ordered arbitration for Pittella’s individual claims against Pine Belt but declined to stay GMAC’s claims.
- Pittella and GMAC settled; Pittella appealed the July 31, 2008 order and the August 29, 2008 dismissal of the class claim.
- Appellate Division treated the appeal as timely and reversed the arbitration orders, holding all arbitration orders could be final and appealable; the Supreme Court granted review to decide finality rules.
- The Court ultimately held that an order compelling or denying arbitration is final for appeal purposes, but the trial court may retain jurisdiction over remaining issues; the ruling applies prospectively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitration orders are final for appeal when not all issues/parties are resolved. | Pittella: Wein requires full finality; all‑or‑nothing. | Pine Belt: rule should treat partial arbitration orders as final to promote efficiency. | Yes; such orders are final for appeal; trial court retains residual jurisdiction. |
| Whether Wein v. Morris governs finality and if the Rule 2:2-3(a) amendment applies prospectively. | Wein applies; all arbitration orders can be appealed as of right. | Wein should be respected but may require prospective application. | Rule 2:2-3(a) amended to deem arbitration orders final for appeal; prospective effect. |
| What governing law applies to finality and appeal in this case (Uniform Arbitration Act vs. Arbitration Act). | Uniform Act should control since post‑2003 agreements. | Arbitration Act governs the pending matter. | Uniform Arbitration Act applies; finality principle extended to arbitration orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wein v. Morris, 194 N.J. 364 (N.J. 2008) (final appealability of arbitration orders under rule amendment)
- Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2000) (FAA finality for orders directing arbitration and dismissing claims)
- Sisneros v. Citadel Broad. Co., 142 P.3d 34 (N.M. App. 2006) (finality analysis of arbitration orders in mixed scenarios)
- Winter Park Real Estate & Invs., Inc. v. Anderson, 160 P.3d 399 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007) (not clearly final for appeal; depends on context of arbitration)
- Okla. Oncology & Hematology P.C. v. U.S. Oncology, Inc., 160 P.3d 936 (Okla. 2007) (interlocutory/arbitration issues treated in finality context)