Background
Joseph Armstrong bought a 2017 Buick Envision under a retail installment contract with Cardinal Buick GMC, Inc. The contract, immediately assigned to Credit Acceptance Corporation, contained an arbitration clause allowing the party first electing arbitration to choose JAMS or the American Arbitration Association, with court appointment of an arbitrator only if those organizations were unavailable or unwilling to serve and the parties could not agree on a substitute.
After Armstrong defaulted, Credit Acceptance repossessed the vehicle and sued in St. Clair County to recover the remaining balance. Armstrong counterclaimed for conversion, breach of the peace, Uniform Commercial Code violations, and unfair and deceptive practices. Credit Acceptance moved to compel arbitration of all claims, asking that Armstrong be required to initiate arbitration and that his counterclaims be dismissed if he did not do so. Armstrong filed no written response. Following a hearing, the circuit court compelled arbitration of all claims and selected a local Belleville law firm as arbitrator.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, affirmed. Credit Acceptance argued that, as the party electing arbitration, it had the contractual right to select JAMS or the AAA rather than have the circuit court appoint a local arbitrator.
The appellate court held that it could not determine the circuit court had erred because Credit Acceptance did not provide a transcript or bystander’s report of the hearing on its motion. The incomplete record left the court without the context needed to assess why the circuit court selected the arbitrator. Under Illinois appellate procedure, doubts arising from an incomplete record are resolved against the appellant.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging an arbitration order must provide a record sufficient to show error.
- Without a hearing transcript or authorized substitute report, the reviewing court presumes the circuit court’s order had a proper legal and factual basis.
- The court affirmed the selected-arbitrator provision without deciding which party made the contractual election where Credit Acceptance sought to require Armstrong to initiate arbitration.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even a potentially strong contractual-arbitrator-selection argument can fail on appeal if the record does not preserve the hearing that produced the challenged order. Parties seeking review of arbitration rulings should ensure that a report of proceedings or a proper bystander’s report is included in the appellate record.
This Rule 23 order is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).