Henderson v. Summerville Ford-Mercury Inc.
748 S.E.2d 221
S.C.2013Background
- Henderson sued Dealer for violations of the UTPA and Dealers Act after purchasing a used 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee with alleged misrepresentations; arbitration was compelled under FAA and an award awarded Henderson $18,875.71 under UTPA and $16,990 under the Dealers Act plus attorney’s fees and costs.
- The arbitrator also denied other Henderson claims, and Henderson was to elect a remedy from the two prevailing claims; Dealer did not move to vacate, modify, or correct the award.
- Dealer paid the arbitration award within weeks of the decision, and Henderson sought confirmation in circuit court; Dealer opposed confirming under UAA as moot due to payment and argued FAA should govern the process.
- The circuit court confirmed the award under the UAA, holding that confirmation was mandatory and the payment did not defeat a justiciable controversy.
- The case was certified for review; the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed, holding that the FAA’s confirmation provision is procedural and that the UAA applies in state court, with the same outcome: confirmation must be granted absent grounds to vacate, modify, or correct.
- The opinion concludes that the recordation of an arbitration award is a ministerial step and payment does not moot the confirmation proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAA versus UAA applicability | Henderson argued FAA governs; UAA argued by Dealer as applicable state procedure. | Dealer contended FAA governs confirmation; sought dismissal on mootness grounds. | Outcome same under either act; UAA procedural; FAA applies to substantive issues. |
| Whether payment moots confirmation | Confirmation is needed to memorialize the award; payment does not dissolve the underlying dispute. | Payment moots the matter and no justiciable controversy remains. | Payment does not moot the confirmation; confirmation mandatory absent grounds to vacate/modify/correct. |
| Necessity of confirmation under UAA/FAA | Recordation of the award is a mandatory step to finalize the arbitral process. | Confirmation could be avoided or treated as moot due to payment and docketing concerns. | Confirmation is mandatory under both frameworks; recording is ministerial and not a separate proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landers v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 402 S.C. 100 (SC 2013) (arbitration generally subject to FAA where interstate commerce involved)
- Toler's Cove Homeowners Ass’n v. Trident Construction Co., 355 S.C. 605 (SC 2003) (state procedural rule applicable to arbitration orders when not vitiating FAA goals)
- Swissmex-Rapid S.A. de C.V. v. SP Systems, L.L.C., 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 (Cal.App.2013) (FAA Section 9 is procedural; state law may govern confirmation unless preempted)
- White v. Siemens, 369 S.W.3d 911 (Tex.App.2012) (FAA may preempt contrary state procedural rules; resolution of confirmation depends on whether procedural or substantive)
- Hall St. Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (confirmation provision carries no hint of flexibility; must grant absent exceptions)
- Qorvis Commc'ns, L.L.C. v. Wilson, 549 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2008) (FAA provisions applicable; procedural issues analyzed in alignment with federal precedent)
- Collins v. Doe, 352 S.C. 462 (SC 2002) (statutory interpretation of mandatory terms in South Carolina)