|
Affirming a trial court’s denial of a motion to confirm an arbitration award, an Arkansas appellate court held that the FAA requirement that a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award must do so within three months does not apply when there is no written arbitration agreement.
In MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Blanks, No. CA06-1396, 2007 WL 2713361 (Ark. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2007), MBNA obtained an arbitration award against Blanks. MBNA petitioned to confirm the award and attached a copy of the award along with an amendment to the credit card agreement adding an arbitration provision.
Blanks moved to vacate the award, arguing that she had not entered into a written agreement to arbitrate disputes, that she did not receive notice of the arbitration proceeding, and that she did not participate in the arbitration hearing, thus depriving her of an opportunity to object. MBNA opposed the motion, arguing that Blanks could not seek to vacate the award because more than ninety days had elapsed since she received notice of the arbitration award against her. The trial court denied MBNA’s motion to confirm, stating, “I just have a bad feeling about this and I am going to deny the motion for summary judgment and the petition to confirm the arbitration award.” But cf. CACV of Colorado, LLC v. Coston, No. 2006 CA 1460, 2007 WL 2713391 (La. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2007) (holding that lower courts “shall confirm” arbitration awards unless there are statutory grounds for vacatur or modification, and cannot set aside an award merely because the “situation did not seem fair.”). MBNA appealed.
The Court held that Blanks was not required to move to vacate within three months of delivery because she disputed entering into an arbitration agreement, did not participate in the arbitration, and because MBNA failed to provide proof she had received the award. Moreover, Blanks was not time barred from raising her objection under the FAA because the three-month deadline only applies to written agreements to arbitrate. Because MBNA only submitted an amendment to the cardholder agreement, not the underlying agreement, in support of its motion to confirm the arbitration award, the Court held that MBNA did not furnish evidence showing that a valid arbitration agreement existed nor did it present evidence showing Blanks had entered into a written agreement that permitted amendments to it.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|