Keel Motors, Inc. v. Tolbert
Keel Motors, Inc. v. Tolbert
Opinion
Jo Ann Tolbert sued Keel Motors, Inc., Frank Robert Dial, Wesley McCoy, and Angela King ("the defendants"), alleging unlawful imprisonment, "intentional infliction of mental anguish," the tort of outrage, and wanton and malicious injury in connection with the repossession of an *Page 964
automobile she purchased from the defendants. The critical issue in this case is whether the defendants offered sufficient evidence to show that the transaction substantially affected interstate commerce, so that the trial court erred in denying their motion to compel arbitration. The trial court, in refusing to compel arbitration, relied upon this Court's decision in Tefco Finance Co. v. Green,
We believe that the facts of this case are substantially similar to those in Tefco, and that the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
The principle of law set out in Tefco was reaffirmed in AmericanGeneral Finance, Inc. v. Morton,
"In Tefco, Pamela Green bought a used car from an Alabama automobile dealer. A dispute arose over payments, and Green sued the dealership, alleging fraud and breach of contract. The dealership made a motion to compel arbitration and offered the arbitration agreement and an affidavit in support thereof. The affidavit contained facts that appeared to isolate the transaction within the State of Alabama. The dealership argued that the car was manufactured outside Alabama and that, by its very nature, it could be transported across state lines. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and this court affirmed. We concluded that the affidavit offered by the dealership did not contain sufficient evidence of an effect on interstate commerce. We went on to hold that the contract for the sale of the used car to Green in Alabama, which car was manufactured outside Alabama and was capable of traveling outside the state, did not per se involve interstate commerce and, therefore, that the arbitration clause was unenforceable."
After examining the record in this case, and considering the arguments of the parties, we are of the opinion that the facts of this case are not substantially different from those in Tefco, and that the trial court did not err *Page 965 in denying the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. We also hold that the trial court did not err when it denied the motion for leave to conduct limited discovery filed by the defendants.
This opinion was prepared by retired Justice Hugh Maddox, sitting as a Justice of this Court pursuant to §
AFFIRMED.
Moore, C.J., and Houston, See, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, Woodall, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Keel Motors, Inc. v. Jo Ann Tolbert.
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published