Munoz v. Green Tree Financial Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an arbitration agreement was not unconscionable where it allowed the lender to seek foreclosure while requiring the consumer to arbitrate any counterclaim
• holding that an arbitration agreement between a consumer and a lender was not unconscionable where it allowed the lender to seek foreclosure while requiring the consumer to arbitrate any counterclaim in the foreclosure action
• holding that although parties may not have contemplated an interstate transaction at the time of contract formation, if their contractual relationship in fact involves interstate commerce, then the FAA nonetheless applies
• holding that whether the parties have an agreement to arbitrate is decided applying South Carolina law and \[t]he parties must also 'manifest a mutual intent to be bound'\ (emphasis added
• holding that whether the parties have an agreement to arbitrate is decided applying South Carolina law, and \the parties must also manifest a mutual intent to be bound\ (emphasis added) (quoting
• holding Uniform Arbitration Act preempted and thus not enforceable as to a transaction involving interstate commerce

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).