|
In Parks v. MBNA America Bank, No. WD65646, WD65691, 2006 WL 2805131 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2006), the Missouri Court of Appeals confirmed that the requirements for a party seeking confirmation of an arbitral award are not the same as for a motion to compel arbitration. A party seeking confirmation need only petition or move for it under the terms of Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
The Parks, who were credit card consumers with MBNA America Bank (MBNA), allowed their three accounts to become delinquent. Following an award in favor of MBNA on one of the accounts (Parks I), MBNA agreed not to seek confirmation of the award, and to release “any and all claims” arising under actions occurring prior to that date, in exchange for $3,500. However, an MBNA attorney claimed that he was unaware of the second and third arbitral awards against the Parks (Parks II and Parks III, respectively), and therefore did not intend to settle on those claims. MBNA sought confirmation of the Parks II and Parks III arbitral awards.
The Court affirmed confirmation of the arbitral awards, while recognizing that the parties’ release agreement stood as a valid defense against enforcement of those judgments. The Parks had argued that MBNA failed to prove three elements: (1) the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate between the parties; (2) that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (3) evidence of the authenticity of the arbitrator’s awards.
However, the Parks confused the requirements for confirming an arbitration award with the requirements for compelling arbitration, found in section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §4. A party seeking confirmation of an award need only apply or move for it, pursuant to section 9 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. §9, and need not establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|