Williams v. America’s Home Place, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01107-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-15-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Vacation of arbitration award - Section 11-15-133(1) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Barnes, J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-05-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: William F. Coleman Disposition: Vacation of an Arbitration Award by the Hinds County County Court in Favor of Homeowners/Plaintiffs Reversed and Rendered to Confirm Arbitrator's Award Case Number: 251-08-000143CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Philvester Williams and Joyce Williams |
SANFORD E. KNOTT |
||
| Appellee: | America's Home Place, Inc. | JAMES D. BELL | ||
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 - Vacation of arbitration award - Section 11-15-133(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Philvester and Joyce Williams received an arbitration award of $12,500 against America’s Home Place, Inc., which had been hired to construct the Williamses’ residence in 2002. The Williamses claimed the award was the result of the arbitrator’s “evident partiality” against them. Subsequently, the County Court of Hinds County granted the Williamses’ motion to vacate the award. On appeal to circuit court, the circuit court reversed the county court’s judgment and entered a judgment confirming the arbitrator’s award. The Williamses appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 11-15-133(1) controls the vacation of arbitration awards. The only bases in our law for refusal to enforce an arbitration award are: the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; 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. In this case, no evidence or testimony was presented to the county court; therefore, the allegation of the arbitrator’s “evident partiality” was left unsupported. The county court’s order vacating the arbitrator’s award made no mention of any reasoning behind the decision, nor did it glean support for the theory that the arbitrator was “evidently partial.” As a matter of public policy, Mississippi courts have consistently allowed parties to arbitrate their differences and have given effect to arbitration awards. Thus, the circuit court was proper in reversing the county court’s vacation of the arbitration award and entering an order confirming the arbitrator’s award. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
