The Tennessee Court of Appeals has refused to hear a disappointed pro se party's objections to an arbitration award, finding them time-barred by Tennessee's 90-day statutory deadline for bringing a motion to vacate an arbitration award.

In MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Hendricks, No. M200700583COAR3CV, 2008 WL 440492 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb 14, 2008), Hendricks entered into a credit card contract with MBNA. After Hendricks defaulted, MBNA sought arbitration of the dispute in accordance with the contract. The arbitrator rejected Hendricks's claim that the debt had been satisfied by an alleged "contract of novation," and issued an award in favor of MBNA.

Approximately five months later, MBNA moved to confirm the award. Hendricks generally denied the debt, and MBNA moved for summary judgment. Almost a year after the award was issued, while MBNA's motions were pending, Hendricks filed an answer and demand for a jury trial with the court. The court granted summary judgment to MBNA on the confirmation motion, holding that Hendricks had failed to specifically respond to the facts asserted by MBNA in its motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the Court emphasized that Hendricks's challenges amounted to an application to vacate the arbitration award, and that Hendricks had failed to move to vacate within the 90 day period following the award as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-312. According to the Court, unless Hendricks could allege that the award was predicated on corruption, fraud, or undue influence, his failure to challenge the award by application within 90 days time-barred all of his present objections to the award.