Michael Bolmer v. Charleston ANUSA, LLC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Michael Bolmer, Respondent,

v.

Charleston ANUSA, LLC d/b/a AutoNation USA
Charleston and Westlake Services, LLC d/b/a Westlake
Financial Services, Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2025-000526

Appeal From Charleston County
Jennifer B. McCoy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-308
Heard June 3, 2026 – Filed June 24, 2026

AFFIRMED

James Y. Becker and Sarah Addy Hodges, both of
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of Columbia, for
Appellants.

David Patrick Conway, of Miller Conway, of Goose
Creek, and Ashley Scott Waddell, of Overland Park,
Kansas, both for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Charleston ANUSA, LLC (AutoNation) and Westlake Services,
LLC (Westlake) (collectively, Appellants) challenge the circuit court's order
denying AutoNation's motion to compel arbitration. Appellants asserted before the
circuit court that "the main dispute here is that Bolmer contends that AutoNation
waived its right to arbitrate this dispute by failing to pay the AAA [American
Arbitration Association] filing fees." We affirm the circuit court's denial of the
motion to compel arbitration.

Facts and Procedural History

On March 14, 2023, Bolmer purchased a 2012 Ford Focus from AutoNation and
financed the purchase through Westlake. He executed AutoNation's Retail
Purchase Agreement, which contained a mandatory arbitration provision. Due to
oil leaks, Bolmer returned the car pursuant to AutoNation's return policy and
bought another vehicle, but Westlake continued to demand payment for the
returned Ford Focus. Bolmer claims Appellants' subsequent erroneous credit
reporting damaged his credit.

On June 21, 2023, Bolmer filed a demand for arbitration with the AAA. On
August 16, the AAA notified Appellants that Bolmer had filed a demand and
requested remittance of the required filing fees pursuant to the Consumer
Arbitration Rules. This letter stated payment was due by August 30, and that the
AAA could decline to administer the dispute if payment was not received by that
date. On September 8, the AAA informed Appellants that payment had not been
received, gave a deadline of September 23, and explained that it would
administratively close the case if it did not receive timely payment.

On September 27, the AAA notified the parties, in writing, that because it had not
received AutoNation's fee payment, "we must decline to administer this case and
have closed our file. According to R-1(d) of the Consumer Arbitration Rules,
should the AAA decline to administer an arbitration, either party may choose to
submit its dispute to the appropriate court for resolution."

On January 12, 2024, Bolmer filed suit against Appellants and asserted they had
waived their right to arbitrate. AutoNation timely answered and filed a motion to
stay and to compel arbitration. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied the
motion to compel arbitration by Form 4 order.

Law and Analysis
We find the circuit court properly denied Appellants' motion to stay and to compel
arbitration because Appellants waived their right to arbitrate by failing to timely
pay the AAA's mandatory filing fees.

"Appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is subject to de novo
review." New Hope Missionary Baptist Church v. Paragon Builders, 379 S.C.
620, 625, 667 S.E.2d 1, 3 (Ct. App. 2008). "[G]enerally the right to enforce an
arbitration clause may be waived." Evans v. Accent Manufactured Homes, Inc.,
352 S.C. 544, 550, 575 S.E.2d 74, 76 (Ct. App. 2003). "There is no set rule as to
what constitutes a waiver of the right to arbitrate; the question depends on the facts
of each case." Id. at 550, 575 S.E.2d at 77 (quoting Hyload, Inc. v. Pre-Engineered
Prods., Inc., 308 S.C. 277, 280, 417 S.E.2d 622, 624 (Ct. App. 1992)). "To decide
whether a waiver has occurred, the court focuses on the actions of the person who
held the right; the court seldom considers the effects of those actions on the
opposing party. That analysis applies to the waiver of a contractual right, as of any
other." Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U.S. 411, 417 (2022).

Bolmer initially filed his claim with the AAA, but the case was administratively
closed due to AutoNation's repeated failure to pay the mandatory filing fees.
AutoNation argues that because the AAA's notices were sent to the dealer location
and not to its registered agent, AutoNation's legal department did not receive notice
of the arbitration claim in time to pay the required filing fees. Like the circuit
court, we reject this argument; moreover, we find it significant that the Retail
Purchase Agreement lists AutoNation's address as 2250 Savannah Hwy—the same
address to which the AAA mailed the fee notices.1

Bolmer cites several cases in which federal courts have determined that the failure
to pay arbitration filing fees constituted a waiver of the right to arbitrate. See
Freeman v. SmartPay Leasing, LLC, 771 F. App'x 926, 933 (11th Cir. 2019)

1
Once AutoNation contacted appellate counsel's firm, counsel promptly reached
out to the AAA to file a notice of appearance. The AAA responded that the
arbitration could be reopened with Bolmer's consent, but Bolmer declined. While
counsel's promptness is commendable, it does not excuse AutoNation's decision to
ignore the AAA's filing fee letters. Although counsel suggests on appeal that
perhaps the dealership did not receive these letters, this argument "is procedurally
barred since it was not raised below." State v. Dickman, 341 S.C. 293, 295, 534
S.E.2d 268, 269 (2000) (citing State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 377 S.E.2d 581 (1989)
(a party cannot argue one ground below and another on appeal)).
(finding the defendant "acted inconsistently with its contractual right to arbitrate
when it refused to pay the initial filing fee . . . [and] therefore waived its right to
arbitration by failing to pay arbitration fees"); Brown v. Dillard's, Inc., 430 F.3d
1004, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding under federal law that litigant's refusal
to pay the arbitration filing fee, among other things, constituted an act inconsistent
with the right to arbitrate); Musharbash v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 222-CV-
02320-DAD-KJN, 2024 WL 919186, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2024) ("Defendant
also acted inconsistently with that right to arbitrate by failing to pay the filing fee
required to initiate the arbitration for nearly two months. Accordingly, defendant
waived its right to arbitrate."); Figueredo-Chavez v. RCI Hosp. Holdings, Inc., 574
F. Supp. 3d 1167, 1171-72 (S.D. Fla. 2021) ("Defendants have clearly waived their
right to arbitrate as to all Plaintiffs . . . by failing to comply with the AAA's rules
and procedures governing fee allocation—in contravention of this Court's
orders."); Mason v. Coastal Credit, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-835-J-39MCR, 2018 WL
6620684, at *7-8 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018) (finding where the AAA closed its file
and declined to administer the case because the plaintiff paid its portion of AAA's
fees, but the defendant did not, the defendant "acted inconsistently with its right to
arbitrate" and "waived its right to arbitrate this dispute"); Stanley v. A Better Way
Wholesale Autos, Inc., Case No. 3:17cv1215-MPS, 2018 WL 3872156, at *6 (D.
Conn. Aug. 15, 2018) (defendant waived right to compel arbitration when it failed
to pay the AAA's required fees and thus refused "to play by the rules that it had
itself agreed to"). Although the underlying circumstances of these cases differ
from the situation here, we find them persuasive as to waiver.

The AAA mailed multiple notices over the course of six weeks to AutoNation at
the address listed in its own Retail Purchase Agreement. Accordingly, we see no
error in the circuit court's denial of Appellants' motion to compel arbitration.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the circuit court's order is

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and TURNER, JJ., concur.