United States Eleventh Circuit

Where plaintiff was not likely to incur prohibitive costs through arbitration, court's reasoning in denying a motion to compel arbitration was in error, and the issue of legality of deferred payment transactions is one for the arbitrator; an arbitration agreement did not grossly favor the lender, and is not facially void because it is undated.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/19/2002
• Published 06/19/2002

Judges

• COX, Circuit Judge:, Before BIRCH, COX and ALARCON , Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Vaneta Lynne Windham, State Banking Dept., Montgomery, AL, for Alabama State Banking Dept., Amicus Curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• George W. Walker, III,Shannon L. Holliday, Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery, AL, J. Mark White, William M. Bowen, Jr., White, Dunn & Booker, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellants., Michael Skotnicki, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.