Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Thursday, March 28, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Arbitration Ruling Throttles Real-Estate Case

(CN) — New Jersey real-estate buyers must individually arbitrate their claims that title-settlement agents overcharged them $50 million, even though the Supreme Court changed the law governing arbitration two years after they sued, the Third Circuit ruled.

For two years, a class of real-estate purchasers litigated their claims that they were overcharged by defendant settlement agents to the tune of $50 million classwide.

On an individual basis, purchasers say they were charged between $70 and $350 more than the county clerk charged for recording deeds, and the defendants, most of which are title insurance companies, pocketed the difference.

The class has spent over $50,000 on experts and served over 130 nonparty subpoenas since it filed its case in 2009, court records show.

But in April 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration.

The defendants immediately recognized "an opportunity to ward off this potential class action," according to the Third Circuit's 40-page opinion filed Thursday.

A presiding federal judge agreed that Concepcion affected a significant change in the law, and ordered the parties to arbitration.

The Third Circuit affirmed Thursday in a 2-1 decision, ruling that "the futility of raising bipolar arbitration as a defense" prior to Concepcion "should excuse the delay in doing so."

The title insurance companies notified the class just a month after the Supreme Court's decision that they would seek to assert their arbitration rights, and filed a motion to compel arbitration three months after the decision came down.

Three months "is not an unreasonable amount of time" to wait, Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote for the panel's 2-1 majority, especially given that "no substantive or procedural litigation occurred during this delay."

Judge Marjorie Rendell dissented, finding that plaintiffs were undoubtedly prejudiced by litigating for two years and spending $57,000 in the process, only to be forced into arbitration.

"The defendants did not just warm the bench for two and a half years before moving to compel arbitration," Rendell said, arguing that the insurers' vigorous defense indicates they waived their right to arbitration.

Categories / Uncategorized

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...