I won on demurrer against a credit union but lost at the next hearing and am being forced to arbitration.

Question

The Judge ruling on the demurrer overruled it in its entirety against defendant. At the next hearing the judge ruled against me and said I have to go to arbitration. There was an error of law and the judge used an old statute . She also made a biased statement,"Plaintiff seems to attack defendant in his writings." The judge apparently didn't appreciate me being in pro per. Now I am headed to arbitration but want to appeal on an "error of law". Or is a trial de novo a better route? Thank you

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

You have valid concerns regarding the judge’s handling of your case, especially with the use of an outdated statute and the biased comments made. When there’s an apparent error of law, appealing that decision can be a strong approach. You can file an appeal focusing specifically on the legal mistakes made during the hearing, which might overturn the decision to send your case to arbitration. 
 
Alternatively, a trial de novo allows you to present your case again in a new court, essentially starting fresh. This can be beneficial if you believe the original trial had significant procedural or legal errors that affected the outcome. It gives you another chance to argue your case without the constraints that may have been present initially. 
 
Consider the strengths of each option based on your situation. If the legal errors are clear and impactful, appealing on those grounds might be the best route. However, if you feel that a new trial would provide a fairer environment to present your case, a trial de novo could be more effective. It may also be helpful to consult with a legal advisor to determine the most strategic path forward for your specific circumstances.

Q: I won on demurrer against a credit union but lost at the next hearing and am being forced to arbitration.