Plaintiff (financial services company) accuses Defendant (credit union) of Unfair Contract Amendment

Divine Pathways LLC is challenging a decision that forces them into arbitration with their financial institution, arguing that the terms were unfairly changed. On November 18, 2025, Divine Pathways LLC filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the State of Wisconsin against Educators Credit Union. The case centers around overdraft fees charged by the credit union and a subsequent amendment to their agreement that included an arbitration clause.

The dispute began when Divine Pathways opened a checking account with Educators Credit Union (ECU) in 2017. From 2017 to 2018, Divine claims ECU improperly charged overdraft fees on transactions despite having a positive balance. Divine asserts this practice affected thousands of other members as well. At the time, their agreement did not include an arbitration clause or any restriction on filing class actions. However, in April 2020, ECU mailed out changes to their membership agreement, including a new arbitration and class action waiver clause. This change was set to take effect on April 22, 2020, unless members opted out by May 1, 2020.

Divine Pathways filed a class action complaint against ECU in 2022. ECU moved to compel individual arbitration based on the amended agreement. The circuit court initially sided with ECU, citing similar cases from Ohio and North Carolina courts as justification for allowing such amendments under change-of-terms clauses in contracts. However, this decision conflicted with a recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in Pruett v. WESTconsin Credit Union which found such unilateral amendments invalid.

In light of the Pruett decision, Divine Pathways sought reconsideration from the circuit court but also filed an appeal fearing deadlines might pass without resolution. The appeal argues that Divine never agreed to arbitrate disputes since they believed opting out was impossible due to confusing language about deadlines—language nearly identical to what was found problematic in Pruett.

Divine seeks reversal of the circuit court’s order compelling arbitration and remand for further proceedings consistent with Wisconsin contract law principles as outlined in Pruett. They argue that Educators Credit Union failed to prove mutual assent required for valid contract modification through arbitration clauses.

The attorneys involved are not named specifically within this document; however, Judge Kashoua Kristy Yang presided over the initial circuit court case while Chief Judge White and Judges Colon and Geenen reviewed it at appellate level under Case ID No. 2023AP2246.