Arbitration
Craig Hurt v. Arvest Bank
Date: Nov. 3, 2025
Issue: Whether the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma erred by holding that a standard change-in-terms clause rendered a bank’s arbitration agreement illusory.
Case Summary: ABA filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to grant Arvest Bank’s petition to review a Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma decision holding that courts — not arbitrators — must decide whether an alleged arbitration agreement is illusory.
In August 2023, Anamarie Hurt sued Arvest Bank, branch manager Julie Powers, and loan officer Audra Holland in the District Court of Tulsa County, alleging they failed to create, implement, and maintain procedures to protect elderly account holders. In 2022, Anamarie discovered that online cryptocurrency scammers persuaded her husband, Craig, to liquidate their assets, deposit the funds into their Arvest accounts, and wire out about $4 million, including proceeds from an Arvest-issued HELOC. After doctors diagnosed Craig with vascular dementia, Anamarie claimed that Arvest allegedly ignored federal guidelines requiring staff training, technology to detect suspicious activity, and suspicious activity reports. Anamarie also claimed that Arvest promoted strong elder protections but allegedly missed red flags, such as nearly 30 large wire transfers over 18 months. Anamarie also challenged the bank’s approval and funding of the HELOC.
Arvest moved to compel arbitration and stay the case, arguing its deposit account agreement with Anamarie governed and required arbitration of her claims. Anamarie opposed the motion, but the district court held that an arbitrator must decide their objections. On appeal, the COCA reversed, ruling that a claim that a contract is illusory challenges the existence of an arbitration agreement — not its enforceability — and that courts must decide whether the parties formed such an agreement. Arvest petitioned the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for review.
In its brief, ABA argued the COCA failed to apply the separability principle to the delegation clause. The Oklahoma Uniform Arbitration Act (OUAA) follows federal law by requiring courts to distinguish between broad challenges to the enforceability of an entire contract, which the arbitrator must decide, and narrow challenges aimed at the arbitration provision, which a court may resolve. The OUAA codifies this rule by directing the arbitrator to determine whether a contract containing a valid arbitration agreement is enforceable, reflecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s Prima Paint doctrine that treats a challenge to the full contract as separate from a challenge to the arbitration agreement. ABA explained the COCA misapplied this framework by treating the plaintiffs’ illusoriness argument as a formation dispute rather than an enforceability dispute, even though Anamarie conceded that consideration supported the contract as a whole.
ABA also argued the COCA’s decision undermines the uniformity of arbitration law. ABA explained that the OUAA requires courts to promote consistency with other states that follow the Uniform Arbitration Act and that both the OUAA and the Federal Arbitration Act reflect a national policy favoring arbitration. Because Anamarie’s’ illusoriness claim targeted the entire contract through the change-in-terms clause, ABA argued federal law required the arbitrator to resolve it. ABA noted that courts in many Revised Uniform Arbitration Act jurisdictions follow this rule and hold that only a specific attack on a delegation clause permits intervention. Given the OUAA’s mandate to maintain uniformity, ABA urged the Court to grant review to keep Oklahoma’s arbitration law aligned with federal precedent and other RUAA states.
Finally, ABA argued the question presented — whether a standard change-in-terms clause renders an arbitration agreement illusory — has nationwide implications for banks. Because consumer banking is a nationwide business used by nearly all U.S. households, the COCA’s ruling threatens the uniform contractual structure that banks rely on across the country. Banks must retain flexibility to update deposit agreement terms in response to regulatory changes and market conditions, and change-in-terms clauses allow them to make those adjustments without terminating and reopening accounts, a process that would burden both consumers and financial institutions.
Bottom Line: If left standing, the COCA’s ruling would create uneven enforcement of arbitration rights, force banks to treat Oklahoma consumers differently, and disrupt the consistent nationwide framework that the OUAA and FAA are designed to protect.
Document: Brief
