The petitioners, Jeffrey N. Evans, Ameriprise Financial Services Inc., Kristina Nicholls and Stephen Bayles, appealed a Marshall Circuit Court order from May 19, 2015, that denied their motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, according to the June 1 opinion.
“Relying upon the doctrine of contra proferentem, the circuit court found the absence of a signature on a brokerage agreement created an ambiguity that invalidated the arbitration clause …” the opinion states.
Justice Allen Loughry authored the majority opinion.
“Upon our careful review of the briefs, the arguments of counsel, the record submitted and the applicable law, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand this action to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In 2012, William Bayles, the late husband of Debra Bayles, the respondent, rolled over his 401(k) retirement account into individual retirement accounts with Ameriprise. Through Evans’ assistance, William Bayles signed a Brokerage Individual Retirement Account Application on June 21, 2012, and, on Sept. 5, 2012, he assisted him in signing an Active Portfolios Application-IRA Account Application.
On March 26, 2013, William Bayles died and Debra Bayles believed she was the intended beneficiary on the portfolios account, however, Amerprise’s documentation indicated Kristina Nicholls and Stephen Bayles, the decedent’s children, as the designated primary beneficiaries in equal shares on both the IRA and the portfolios account.
On Sept. 5, 2014, Debra Bayles filed a complaint challenging Ameriprise’s payout o the proceeds in the portfolio account to the decedent’s children and asserted claims against Ameriprise and Evans, including negligence, detrimental reliance, respondent superior and breach of contract.
She also asserted an unjust enrichment claim against the decedents children in relation to their receipt of the proceeds from the portfolios account.
On Nov. 17, 2014, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration and the circuit court denied the motion on May 19, 2015.
The Supreme Court found that the circuit court erred by “invalidating the arbitration clause based on the absence of a signature on the Brokerage Agreement for the IRA account.:
“Although the petitioners have also asked this Court to enter an order forcing the arbitration clause, there are unresolved issues that preclude us from doing so, including whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable and whether any or all of Mrs. Bayles’ claims ‘fall within the substantive scope of that arbitration agreement,’” the opinion states.
The Supreme Court reversed the May 19, 2015, order, and remanded it back to circuit court for further proceedings.
The petitioners are represented by Edward P. Tiffey of Tiffey Law Practice PLLC; and Deva A. Solomon and Ancil G. Ramey of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC.
The respondent is represented by Herman D. Lantz of Lantz Law Offices.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 15-0600