An Ohio appellate court has held that it would not confirm an otherwise valid arbitration award when the moving party failed to attach a copy of the arbitration agreement to its application for confirmation.

InMidland Funding NCC-2 Corp. v. Johnson, No. 07 CA 29, 2008 WL 2954286 (Ohio Ct. App. July 31, 2008), Johnson opened a credit card account with Midland. The cardholder’s contract contained an arbitration agreement. Later, Midland filed a claim against Johnson with the National Arbitration Forum. The appointed arbitrator issued an award in favor of Midland.

After Johnson failed to pay on the award, Midland filed an application to confirm the award. The trial court denied the motion, holding that Midland had failed to attach the arbitration agreement to its application as required by Ohio R. Civ. P. 10(d). Midland appealed, arguing that the trial court erroneously applied court procedural rules to an arbitration matter.

The Court agreed that arbitration proceedings are "special proceedings" as defined by Ohio R. Civ. P. 1, and, therefore, are not subject to the Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., MBNA Am. Bank N.A. v. Anthony, No. 05AP090059, 2006 WL 1063752, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2006).

However, the Court found that Midland did not comply with the Rules of Court in its application for confirmation. Specifically, the Court noted that court rules required that the applicant file, at the time of application, the arbitration agreement. Ohio R. C. 2711.14.

According to the Court, Midland’s failure to comply with this rule was fatal to its claim, despite its supplemental filing adding the agreement at a later date. The Court suggested that the application may have complied with the rules if Midland had sought leave to amend the application, because under that scenario, the amendment would have arguably related back to the date of the original application.

The Court also distinguished Midland’s failure to attach the agreement from the facts in NCO Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. McAffee, 843 N.E.2d 1259, 1260 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005), noting that the applicant in McAffee had attached the appropriate agreement before the court raised the issue and before the other party suffered any prejudice from the defective filing.