Johnson Land Co. v. C. E. Frazier Constr. Co., Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00924-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00924-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-26-2006 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Arbitration - Validity of judgment - Sections 11-15-133 & -135 - Findings of fact - M.R.C.P. 52 & 53(g) - URCCC 5.05 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, P.J., Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: Confirmed arbitration award in favor of Appellee Case Number: 251-02-204CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JOHNSON LAND COMPANY |
GLENN STURDIVANT SWARTZFAGER |
||
| Appellee: | C. E. FRAZIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. AND THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY | SAMUEL C. KELLY, CHERI TURNAGE GATLIN, KENNETH G. PERRY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Arbitration - Validity of judgment - Sections 11-15-133 & -135 - Findings of fact - M.R.C.P. 52 & 53(g) - URCCC 5.05 |
| Summary of the Facts: | C. E. Frazier Construction Company, Inc. was the prime contractor for the construction of a new elementary school for the Yazoo City Municipal School District. Johnson Land Company was to perform certain dirt work as a subcontractor. Under the terms of the subcontract, the parties agreed to a binding arbitration provision that was silent regarding subsequent court review, but did state that all claims, disputes and other matters would be decided in accordance with the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association. After a dispute arose between Johnson and Frazier, Johnson filed a complaint against Frazier and its surety, American Insurance Company. Subsequently Johnson and Frazier entered a separate arbitration agreement which stated the circuit court would retain jurisdiction “to enter judgment on the arbitrator’s award.” After the arbitrator entered one page award finding for Frazier and against Johnson in the amount of $150,209.72, Frazier filed a motion requesting that the circuit court confirm the award. Johnson filed a response asserting that the motion to confirm was premature, as Johnson expected to file a motion for reconsideration with the arbitrator. Within 20 days from the award. The arbitrator denied Johnson’s request for reconsideration and affirmed the original award. After the circuit court entered a judgment affirming the award, new counsel for Johnson filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment in the circuit court. The circuit court entered new Order Confirming Arbitration Award and a new Final Judgment, in response to Frazier’s second Motion for Order Confirming Arbitration Award. Johnson filed Notice of Appeal and Motion to Vacate which the court denied. Johnson filed a Motion to Reconsider which was denied. Johnson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Validity of judgment Sections 11-15-133 and -135 contain specific grounds, and the time frame during which they must be asserted, which represent the only way a court is allowed to overturn the award of an arbitrator. The only bases for refusal to enforce an arbitration award are that the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means or that there was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of the parties. If none of the grounds to challenge the award are asserted within their respective time limits, the court shall confirm the award in accordance with section 11-15-125. Johnson argues that, according to sections 11-15-125 and -135, it should have been allowed ninety days to challenge the arbitrator’s award based on one of the listed grounds, before the circuit court could confirm it. Frazier, however, correctly points out that according to the same code section, the award shall be confirmed absent the existence of at least one of the grounds listed for vacating, modifying, or correcting an award. Because Johnson did not assert any of these grounds in its response asserting that the motion to confirm was premature, its motion to set aside judgment, motion to vacate, or motion to reconsider, the circuit court properly confirmed the award. None of the applicable statutes expressly prohibits the circuit court’s ability to enter an order confirming the arbitration award before the ninety-day period expires. Issue 2: Findings of fact Johnson argues that the trial court which confirms the arbitration decision must make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to its decision to confirm. An arbitrator does not have to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law, absent a provision in the contract or applicable statute to the contrary. Johnson and Frazier were obviously concerned about avoiding the time and expense of litigation because they agreed that time was of the essence and that arbitration would be binding. Therefore, requiring a written record would frustrate the parties’ initial contract. M.R.C.P. 52 and 53(g) and URCCC 5.05 do not change this result. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
