Cynthia Yates appeals pro se from three separate orders of the trial court which: i confirmed an arbitration award entered against Yates and in favor of CACV of Colorado, LLC, “CACV” as successor in interest to Maryland Bank North America “MBNA” and thereby implicitly denied Yates’s motion to vacate that award; ii entered judgment for CACV in the amount of the arbitration award against Yates; and iii denied Yates’s counterclaim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USCA §1692 et seq. the “FDCPA”. We find that CACV presented no evidence to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement, and that the trial court therefore erred in confirming the arbitration award and in entering an order of judgment against Yates. Because Yates’s motion to vacate the arbitration award was untimely, however, we find no error by the trial court in denying that motion. Finally, because a counterclaim under the FDCPA could not be properly asserted in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, we find that the trial court erred in addressing Yates’s counterclaim, rather than dismissing it. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders confirming the arbitration award and entering judgment in favor of CACV; we affirm the trial court’s denial of Yates’s motion to vacate the arbitration award; and we vacate the trial court’s order denying Yates’s counterclaim. We remand the case for entry of an order dismissing Yates’s counterclaim without prejudice. “In reviewing a trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award, this Court will affirm unless the trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous.” Punctuation omitted. Brookfield Country Club, Inc. v. St. James-Brookfield, LLC .1 The question of whether a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists, however, represents a question of law, subject to de novo review. Order Homes, LLC v. Iverson .2
The record shows that this case arose out of Yates’s alleged default on her obligations under a credit card agreement with MBNA. MBNA assigned the debt to CACV, who then initiated two different arbitration claims against Yates in the National Arbitration Forum “NAF”. The first arbitration claim “Case No. 1″ was filed sometime in or before July 2005. The notice of claim sent to Yates by CACV, and all subsequent correspondence from and between the NAF, CACV, and Yates concerning this claim, referenced an MBNA account number ending in 9695, an NAF file number ending in 8268, and a “claimant CACV reference number” ending in 5326.
