## Facts

- Larketta Randolph bought a mobile home in Alabama under a retail installment contract later assigned to Green Tree Financial Corporation–Alabama.
- The contract required Randolph to obtain insurance protecting the lender against default-related costs.
- The contract contained a broad arbitration clause covering disputes arising from or relating to the contract or resulting relationships.
- Randolph sued in federal court alleging:
  - Truth in Lending Act violations for failing to disclose the insurance requirement as a finance charge; and
  - Equal Credit Opportunity Act violations based on requiring arbitration of statutory claims.
- The district court compelled arbitration and dismissed Randolph’s action with prejudice.
- Randolph sought reconsideration, asserting she lacked resources to arbitrate and would have to forgo her claims.
- The arbitration clause did not allocate responsibility for filing fees, arbitrator compensation, or other arbitration costs.

## Issues

1. Whether an order compelling arbitration and dismissing all claims is a “final decision with respect to an arbitration” appealable under FAA § 16(a)(3).
2. Whether an arbitration agreement is unenforceable solely because it is silent about arbitration costs and fees, given the possibility of prohibitively expensive arbitration preventing effective vindication of federal statutory rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing all claims was a “final decision” under FAA § 16(a)(3) and therefore immediately appealable.
- The Court held a cost-silent arbitration agreement is not unenforceable on that basis alone.
- The party resisting arbitration bears the burden to show a likelihood of incurring prohibitive arbitration costs.
- Randolph’s showing was insufficient because the claimed risk of prohibitive costs was speculative on the record presented.
- The Court affirmed the court of appeals on appellate jurisdiction, reversed on unenforceability, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- “Final decision” in FAA § 16(a)(3) carries its ordinary meaning: a decision ending the litigation on the merits and leaving nothing for the court to do but execute judgment.
- A district court order compelling arbitration and dismissing the underlying action is final and appealable under FAA § 16(a)(3).
- Large arbitration costs can, in some cases, prevent effective vindication of federal statutory rights, but a challenger must support that claim with evidence tied to the particular dispute.
- An arbitration clause’s silence about fees and costs does not itself establish unenforceability; speculation about possible expense is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that a dismissal accompanying an order to arbitrate is immediately appealable under the FAA, and that an arbitration agreement lacking an express cost-allocation term remains enforceable unless the party opposing arbitration proves a likely, prohibitive cost barrier in the specific case.


Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000)