Following the grant of its application for interlocutory appeal, Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc., appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. Because Wright executed an arbitration agreement that mandated the arbitration of his claim, we reverse the trial court’s ruling. The question of arbitrability, i.e., whether an agreement creates a duty for the parties to arbitrate the particular grievance, is undeniably an issue for judicial determination. The standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to compel arbitration is whether the trial court was correct as a matter of law. The construction of an arbitration agreement, like any other contract, presents a question of law, which is subject to de novo review.1 The record shows that appellee Gary Lee Wright purchased a used 2003 GMC Yukon from Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc., on or about February 22, 2006. Contemporaneously with the execution of the retail purchase contract, Wright executed a Retail Installment Contract the “Contract” and an Arbitration Agreement the “Agreement” with Bill Heard. The Contract was assigned to Wells Fargo. Approximately two years later, Wright discovered that the vehicle had been involved in an accident before he purchased it and consequently attempted to rescind his contract. Wells Fargo refused, and Wright filed the instant action, alleging that Wells Fargo had engaged in deceptive business practices by requiring Wright to continue to pay for the vehicle. Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action and to compel arbitration, which the trial court summarily denied. The trial court issued a certificate of immediate review, and we granted the interlocutory appeal.
1. In its sole enumeration of error, Wells Fargo argues that the trial court erred when it denied its motion to compel. We agree and reverse.