2002 Supreme Court term

GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. NKA CONSECO FINANCE CORP. v. LYNN W. BAZZLE, ETC., ET AL.

Dockets 02-634Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

Petitioner argues that arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act is a matter of consent, not coercion.

The dispute concerns whether an arbitrator exceeded his authority by certifying a class‑wide arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Respondent contends that the arbitrator lacks authority to decide the rights of unnamed third parties and that the class action was unauthorized.

Background and question before the Court

Justice O'Connor asked whether the contract should be interpreted according to the law of the state with jurisdiction.

A Justice asked, "Why?"

Justice Scalia asked which doctrine of state contract law led to the result, referencing the contra proferentem rule.

What each side argues

Petitioner (Green Tree Financial Corp.)

According to Petitioner, petitioner asserts that arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act is based on consent, not coercion.

Petitioner argues that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by certifying a class‑wide arbitration, contrary to the parties' consent.

According to Ms. Pillard, petitioner says the South Carolina Supreme Court applied a rule of construction against the drafter without any contractual or statutory directive.

Respondent (Lynn W. Bazzle, etc.)

According to Mr. Phillips, respondent argues that the arbitrator does not have authority to resolve the rights of unnamed third parties; that is a question for the court.

According to Carter G. Phillips, respondent states that neither Green Tree nor any of the unnamed class members consented to have the arbitrator arbitrate their claims.

What happened at oral argument

The case was heard at oral argument before the Supreme Court at 10:10 a.m.

After argument, the case was submitted.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 953cf04a4346daf3b5a3-r1-77a3e8fe3a92be4e.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.