The Eighth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion to stay pending arbitration. The record indicated that the arbitration provision was entered into two months before the contract, and was therefore suspect. The plaintiff spoke very little English when th contract was made. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant loan company is a sham operation designed to get business for defendant waterproofing company. The trial court did not appear to take any of the facts into consideration, in order to satisfy itself that the arbitration provision was valid. Additionally, the trial court failed to determine the scope of the arbitration clause, ie. to which of the plaintiff's claims the clause should apply.
Judge Michael J. Corrigan dissented, stating that the plaintiff did not present any evidence showing her signature was fraudulent. The signature appeared to match the signatures on the other documents.