The Alabama Supreme Court has reversed a trial court's order vacating an arbitration award, holding that the opposing party's appeal of the order originally compelling arbitration was untimely under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In Jenks v. Harris, Nos. 1050686, 1050687, 2008 WL 683633 (Ala. Mar. 14, 2008), Jenks entered into a construction contract with homebuilder Dukes. The contract contained an arbitration agreement encompassing any and all related disputes. Later, Dukes was unable to complete the home and hired Harris to complete the job.

Jenks alleged that Harris had not fulfilled the contract, and filed suit against Dukes, Harris, and other parties. Dukes moved to compel arbitration of all the claims. Harris objected to arbitration as a non-signatory, but the motion to compel was granted.

The arbitrator entered an award in favor of Jenks and against both Dukes and Harris. However, upon Harris's motion, the trial court vacated the portion of the award entered against Harris, holding that the motion to compel was improperly granted as to Jenks's claims against Harris.

After determining that Jenks's appeal of the vacatur order was proper, the Court examined the timeliness of Harris's appeal of the order to compel arbitration. Harris argued that it had no right to an immediate appeal of the motion to compel under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure in effect at the time.

The Court, however, observed that the amended rule, which gives a party the right to immediately appeal a motion to compel, took effect on October 1, 2001, over six months before Jenks's motion to compel was granted. See Ala. R. App. P. 4(d) (2007). Therefore, the Court found Harris's failure to appeal the motion to compel within 42 days as required by the amended rule barred his attempt at the trial court to challenge the motion to compel once arbitration had concluded.

Harris also argued that vacatur was warranted because the arbitrator engaged in manifest disregard of the law by holding him personally liable for the acts of his employer, but the Court found sufficient evidence presented at the arbitration proceeding to support the arbitrator's findings on that point.