For the second time, the Missouri Court of Appeals has denied a motion to compel arbitration filed by a debt buyer seeking to discharge a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit, ruling that the plaintiff has not done enough to support the chain of assignments that led to its ownership of the account.
The Background: The dispute traces back to 2015, when the defendant took out a car loan with DriveTime to finance the purchase of a vehicle. Alongside this contract, she also signed an arbitration agreement. The contract explicitly allowed DriveTime to transfer its rights, including arbitration, to any subsequent purchaser, assignee, or servicer. On the same day, DriveTime assigned all its rights, including arbitration, to DT Acceptance Corporation (DT Acceptance).
Years later, in January 2020, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, seeking to recover more than $13,000 following the repossession of the vehicle. The defendant responded by filing a counterclaim under the FDCPA, which prompted the plaintiff to file a motion to compel arbitration based on the original agreement with DriveTime. However, the plaintiff’s initial attempt to compel arbitration was denied by the court due to insufficient evidence of the assignment chain from DriveTime to the plaintiff.
The Ruling: In the most recent appeal, the plaintiff presented a second affidavit, attempting to establish a clearer link between DriveTime and the plaintiff through a series of assignments, including a critical name change from DT Acceptance to Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation (Bridgecrest). However, the Missouri Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff still failed to provide competent evidence proving a valid assignment of the arbitration rights from DriveTime to the plaintiff.
The court highlighted several deficiencies in the plaintiff’s evidence, particularly in the custodian’s affidavit, which was deemed insufficient to establish the necessary business record-keeping continuity between DriveTime, DT Acceptance, and Bridgecrest. The affidavit’s general and conclusory statements failed to demonstrate the relevance and authenticity of the documents needed to support the plaintiff’s claim. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, denying the plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.
