Defendant: GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. Facts of the Case: Larketta Randolph financed a mobile home through Green Tree Financial. His home retail contract and security agreement required Randolph to carry seller's sole interest insurance, which protects the seller from repossession costs in the event of a default. The agreement also provided that if any disputes arose under statutory law or case law, they would be resolved by binding arbitration. Identification of Key Legal Issues: The plaintiff alleged that Green Tree violated the Truth in Lending Act by failing to disclose as a finance charge the seller's single-interest insurance requirement. She also alleged that Green Tree Financial violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by requiring her to arbitrate its legal causes of action. Court Ruling and Reasoning: Judge Ira DeMent dismissed the case with prejudice in favor of the defendant and the court ordered arbitration. Ct. of appeals for the 11th Cir. 178 F.3d 1149 Appellant: Larketta RANDOLPHAppellee: GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. Opinion and reasoning of the court: Opinion of Carnes, Circuit Judge. We conclude that the district court's judgment was a “final decision” subject to appeal. We also believe that the arbitration agreement in this case defeats the remedial purposes of TILA and is unenforceable.Concurring Opinion: NoneDissenting Opinion: None. Supreme Court. 121 S.Ct. 513Petitioner: GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. Respondent: Larketta RANDOLPH Judges: REHQUIST, CJ, delivered the opinion of the Court, part II of which was unanimous and parts I and II of which were joined by O'CONNER, SCALIA, KENNEDY and THOMAS, JJ GINSBURG, J., filed an opi...... middle of paper ......decision? Why did the Court rule this way? The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 11th Circuit for further consideration of the affordability of the arbitral forum to the borrower. The arbitration agreement was not rendered unenforceable simply because it was silent about arbitration fees and therefore would have failed to provide the borrower with protection against potentially significant costs associated with the arbitration. pursuing its federal legal claims before the arbitral forum. Works CitedGREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP.-ALABAMA et al. c. RANDOLPH: certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (2009). Supreme Court Cases: The 21st Century (2000-Present), 1. 513 US 79, p. 373-387.LexisNexis. 2000 US Lexis 8279. Accessed 02/14/2014.WestlawNext. 121 S.Ct. 513. Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph. Accessed, 3.27.2014.