Mandatory Arbitration Overview
Center for Responsible Lending
June 28, 2006
Denying access to justice
Most people assume they can take their grievances to court if a lender violates the law. Unfortunately, many borrowers are denied that option through "binding mandatory arbitration" (BMA), a common clause in loan contracts. Barred from bringing claims to court, victims of abusive lending practices frequently find that their loan contracts require them to go through arbitration: proceedings conducted in secrecy, with limited evidence and documentation. All too often, borrowers pay excessive costs and receive unfair results.
CRL has joined a coalition of leading consumer groups in a campaign to educate Americans about this serious breach of rights and outline ways to correct the problem. For more information, visit the Give Me Back My Rights Coalition.
Briefs & FactsheetsMandatory Arbitration Harms Homeowners |
Reports & PapersSeparate and Unequal Justice |
In the CourtsBuckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna |
More Featured Content
Comments on Ernst & Young Arbitration Outcomes Report
Ernst & Young's report did not successfully demonstrate its claims that borrowers are not disadvantaged by binding mandatory arbitration.
NCLC Arbitration Update: Signs of Progress, but No Time to Celebrate
Mortgage agencies, courts and consumers so "no" to abusive mandatory arbitration clauses.
-
###
About the Center for Responsible Lending
The Center for Responsible Lending is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and policy organization dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth by working to eliminate abusive financial practices. CRL is affiliated with Self-Help, one of the nation's largest community development financial institutions.

























