BRIAN BOX v. DAVID GARDNER (Tenn. Ct. App. December 26, 2012)
Homeowner and Contractor filed competing suits against one another in the general sessions court. Homeowner was awarded $1,500.00 against Contractor; Contractor’s suit against Homeowner was dismissed. Contractor then appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court dismissed all actions filed by both parties, finding that the construction contracts required arbitration of disputes. Homeowner appeals and we affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/boxb_122612.pdf
Showing posts with label Arbitration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arbitration. Show all posts
December 27, 2012
August 22, 2011
Court Reviews Whether the Trial Court had Jurisdiction to Confirm an Arbitration Award
LEE BROWN AND GUTTERSHUTTER OF NASHVILLE, LLC v. DAVID STYLES ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 22, 2011)
Appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The principle defense is that the appellant, the party against whom the arbitration award was issued, was never a party to the arbitration agreement at issue and did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award and enrolled a judgment against the appellant in the amount of $78,956.80 plus costs.
We reverse the confirmation of the award against the appellant upon the finding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award. This is because the statute which confers jurisdiction upon the court to confirm arbitration awards, Tenn. Code Ann.section 29-5-302, requires a written arbitration agreement between the parties, and there is no written agreement between the appellant and appellee to arbitrate. Thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award against the appellant.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/brownl_082211.pdf
Appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The principle defense is that the appellant, the party against whom the arbitration award was issued, was never a party to the arbitration agreement at issue and did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award and enrolled a judgment against the appellant in the amount of $78,956.80 plus costs.
We reverse the confirmation of the award against the appellant upon the finding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award. This is because the statute which confers jurisdiction upon the court to confirm arbitration awards, Tenn. Code Ann.section 29-5-302, requires a written arbitration agreement between the parties, and there is no written agreement between the appellant and appellee to arbitrate. Thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award against the appellant.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/brownl_082211.pdf
May 20, 2010
Court reviews denial of motion to compel arbitration in a recission of contract case
FRANKE ELLIOTT, ET AL. v. ICON IN THE GULCH, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2010)
Purchasers of pre-construction condominium units sued the developer seeking rescission of their contracts to purchase the units. The developer filed a motion to compel mediation and/or arbitration pursuant to the contract. The trial court denied the motion and the developer appeals. Finding error, we reverse and remand.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/elliottf_052010.pdf
Purchasers of pre-construction condominium units sued the developer seeking rescission of their contracts to purchase the units. The developer filed a motion to compel mediation and/or arbitration pursuant to the contract. The trial court denied the motion and the developer appeals. Finding error, we reverse and remand.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/elliottf_052010.pdf
March 25, 2008
U.S. Supreme Court limits judicial review of arbitration decisions, even when agreed to by contracting parties
High Court Rules in Arbitration Case
(by PETE YOST, March 25, 2008)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has limited the role of the courts in reviewing arbitration awards under federal law.
In a 6-3 decision Tuesday, the justices said, however, that there may be other legal avenues besides the Federal Arbitration Act to enable a larger role for the courts in examining the work of arbitrators. The case before the Supreme Court involved a cleanup dispute between toymaker Mattel Inc. and the owner of a factory site in Oregon contaminated with an industrial solvent.
An arbitrator initially ruled in favor of Mattel, and the Supreme Court ruling is helpful to the toy manufacturer. The Federal Arbitration Act "confines its expedited judicial review" to narrow circumstances, Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. Souter added, however, that the court is "is no position" to address possible alternatives to reliance on the FAA.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Mattel and Hall Street Associates L.L.C. could agree in advance to broad court review of an arbitration award to correct any errors of law.
An arbitrator ruled that Mattel did not have to pay for environmental cleanup on Hall Street's property. A federal judge subsequently rejected the arbitrator's legal reasoning. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with Mattel, saying the Federal Arbitration Act bars judicial review of arbitration awards in such circumstances. The appeals court finding in favor of Mattel underscores the concern of some businesses that are hesitant to settle disputes through arbitration. These businesses say that in most cases they cannot appeal to a judge if an arbitrator rules against them.
Expanding judicial review could have a positive impact, encouraging parties in a dispute to enter arbitration, knowing that serious errors could be corrected by the courts. Others in the business community say that the downside to expanded court review is that it could lead to an increase in the cost and time that result from losing parties attempting to overturn arbitration awards. The American Arbitration Association oversaw more than 137,000 cases in 2006, the large majority of them arbitrations. The association opposes expanded judicial review.
(by PETE YOST, March 25, 2008)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has limited the role of the courts in reviewing arbitration awards under federal law.
In a 6-3 decision Tuesday, the justices said, however, that there may be other legal avenues besides the Federal Arbitration Act to enable a larger role for the courts in examining the work of arbitrators. The case before the Supreme Court involved a cleanup dispute between toymaker Mattel Inc. and the owner of a factory site in Oregon contaminated with an industrial solvent.
An arbitrator initially ruled in favor of Mattel, and the Supreme Court ruling is helpful to the toy manufacturer. The Federal Arbitration Act "confines its expedited judicial review" to narrow circumstances, Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. Souter added, however, that the court is "is no position" to address possible alternatives to reliance on the FAA.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Mattel and Hall Street Associates L.L.C. could agree in advance to broad court review of an arbitration award to correct any errors of law.
An arbitrator ruled that Mattel did not have to pay for environmental cleanup on Hall Street's property. A federal judge subsequently rejected the arbitrator's legal reasoning. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with Mattel, saying the Federal Arbitration Act bars judicial review of arbitration awards in such circumstances. The appeals court finding in favor of Mattel underscores the concern of some businesses that are hesitant to settle disputes through arbitration. These businesses say that in most cases they cannot appeal to a judge if an arbitrator rules against them.
Expanding judicial review could have a positive impact, encouraging parties in a dispute to enter arbitration, knowing that serious errors could be corrected by the courts. Others in the business community say that the downside to expanded court review is that it could lead to an increase in the cost and time that result from losing parties attempting to overturn arbitration awards. The American Arbitration Association oversaw more than 137,000 cases in 2006, the large majority of them arbitrations. The association opposes expanded judicial review.
November 09, 2007
FAA preempts TUAA and trumps its separate-initial provision when materials used in new home construction are manufactured outside Tennessee
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, as subrogee of, GERALD SCOTT NEWELL, ET AL. v. EASYHEAT, INC., ET AL (Tenn.Ct.App. November 8, 2007).
The trial court denied Defendant Tennessee Heritage Enterprises's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act notwithstanding the arbitration clause contained in the construction contract executed by Plaintiff homeowner and Defendant. The trial court denied arbitration on the basis of insufficient interstate commerce. Defendant appeals; we reverse and remand.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/easyheat_110807.pdf
"In this case, it is undisputed that a substantial number of the materials used by THE in the construction of the Newell home, including the roof shingles, lumber, windows, tile, carpet, insulation, appliances, mortar, HVAC units, wood trim, flooring, and the floor warming system at the center of this dispute, were manufactured outside of Tennessee. Further, although State Farm asserts these materials were purchased by THE after leaving the flow of commerce, the FAA clearly reaches beyond the “flow” of commerce and is applicable even where interstate commerce was not contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was executed. We are not insensitive to the trial court’s observation that virtually every modern construction contract falls within the purview of the FAA under the broad interpretation urged by THE. However, in light of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Allied-Bruce and Citizens Bank, we must agree that the contract here involves interstate commerce where a substantial amount of materials used in the Newell home were manufactured out of Tennessee by non-Tennessee entities. We agree with THE that the FAA is applicable in this case. " Id.
The trial court denied Defendant Tennessee Heritage Enterprises's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act notwithstanding the arbitration clause contained in the construction contract executed by Plaintiff homeowner and Defendant. The trial court denied arbitration on the basis of insufficient interstate commerce. Defendant appeals; we reverse and remand.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/easyheat_110807.pdf
"In this case, it is undisputed that a substantial number of the materials used by THE in the construction of the Newell home, including the roof shingles, lumber, windows, tile, carpet, insulation, appliances, mortar, HVAC units, wood trim, flooring, and the floor warming system at the center of this dispute, were manufactured outside of Tennessee. Further, although State Farm asserts these materials were purchased by THE after leaving the flow of commerce, the FAA clearly reaches beyond the “flow” of commerce and is applicable even where interstate commerce was not contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was executed. We are not insensitive to the trial court’s observation that virtually every modern construction contract falls within the purview of the FAA under the broad interpretation urged by THE. However, in light of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Allied-Bruce and Citizens Bank, we must agree that the contract here involves interstate commerce where a substantial amount of materials used in the Newell home were manufactured out of Tennessee by non-Tennessee entities. We agree with THE that the FAA is applicable in this case. " Id.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)