|
The Court of Appeals of Ohio confirmed an arbitration award in the face of untimely arguments that the challenging party had not agreed to arbitrate, was not notified of the award, and that the arbitration had not occurred in the appropriate venue.
In CACV of Colorado, L.L.C. v. Kogler, No. 021329, 2006 WL 2790398 (Ohio Ct. App. 2 Dist. Sep 29, 2006), Linda Kogler appealed the decision of the trial court to dismiss her objections to an arbitration award rendered in favor of CACV of Colorado (“CACV”) because the objections were not filed in a timely manner.
Under Ohio law, Kogler’s motion was untimely because a motion to vacate must be filed within three months of the issuance of an arbitration award. Further, her motion did not support her contention that she was unaware of the ruling. The Court pointed to the “proof of service on the arbitrator's award [as]…evidence that [Kogler] knew of the award before CACV filed its application, and within the time required…to file her motion to vacate.”
Kogler also argued that she had not agreed to arbitrate, but the Court held that her “argument lacked merit.” Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists is to be decided in arbitration, and the arbitrator found the agreement to be valid. CACV further offered proof of the agreement with a copy of the written arbitration agreement between the parties.
Finally, the arbitration agreement provided that the arbitration should take place in the Southern District of Ohio. Kogler argued that it had not. The Court held that although proof of her contention was absent, “that could have been a basis to vacate the award under [Ohio law], on a finding that the arbitrator exceeded her powers.”
However, even if her objections had been made in a timely manner, Kogler would have had the burden of proving the arbitration was conducted in the wrong location. The Court held that merely contending that the face of the award fails to show compliance would have been insufficient to meet her burden of proof.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|