Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant, Crossmark Inc., appeals the trial court’s final judgment, based in part on a prior interlocutory summary judgment, that confirms an arbitration award in favor of the appellees, John and Jim Hazar. HOLDING:Affirmed as modified. Crossmark’s first argument is the only argument asserting a statutory ground for vacating an arbitration award � that the arbitrators failed to postpone the arbitration hearing upon a showing of sufficient cause for a postponement. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code �171.088(a)(3)(B). The limited record shows that Crossmark failed to show sufficient cause for a postponement. The record reflects that in its response to the arbitration claim, Crossmark sought to join Action as a third party to the arbitration. At a preliminary hearing held some months before the arbitration hearing, the arbitrators refused to join Action as a party, but indicated they would consider a motion to consolidate the arbitration proceedings if Crossmark properly initiated a separate proceeding against Action. According to the briefs of the parties, it was not until six days before the hearing was to begin that Crossmark filed a separate arbitration proceeding against Action and again moved to join Action in the Hazar arbitration, to consolidate the arbitration proceedings, and to postpone the Hazar hearing to allow for mediation required under the sales agreement between Crossmark and Action. The arbitrators heard this motion on the first day of the scheduled arbitration hearing and denied the motion. The court concludes the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against Crossmark’s statutory ground for vacating the award based on the arbitrators’ failure to postpone the arbitration hearing upon a showing of sufficient cause. Crossmark argues Action was an indispensable party to the suit to confirm the arbitration award under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 39. Although the trial court denied Crossmark’s motion to join Action as an indispensable party, Crossmark joined Action as a third-party defendant in the suit to confirm the award. Action thus appeared and answered, and assuming Action was a party to be joined under rule 39, any error in denying Crossmark’s motion was harmless. Although Action was joined as a third-party defendant to the Hazars’ suit to confirm the award, the trial court later severed out Crossmark’s third-party claims against Action. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in doing so because the purpose of the Hazars’ suit was to confirm the arbitration award between the Hazars and Crossmark, an award to which Action was not a party. Crossmark’s arguments that Action should have been a party to the arbitration are of no avail; the fact remains that, in the posture of the case before the trial court, Action was not an “indispensable” party to the suit to confirm the award. Crossmark’s public policy arguments are all essentially the same; by not joining and hearing Crossmark’s claims against Action, the arbitrators: 1. violated public policy against “piecemeal litigation;” 2. did not consider the sales agreement and the non-competition agreements as a single instrument; and 3. violated public policy by enforcing a naked covenant-not-to-compete, separate and apart from the main contract. These contentions all hinge on the same essential assertion: it was a violation of public policy for the arbitrators to award the Hazars damages against Crossmark for breach of the non-competition agreements without considering Crossmark’s claims against Action under the sales agreement. Rather than raising public policy arguments, Crossmark’s contentions raise only the legal argument of whether the arbitrators should have considered all the agreements together as one instrument. Crossmark’s real contention is that the arbitrators erred by refusing to accept its failure of consideration defense. The trial court could not review these nonstatutory and nonpublic policy grounds for challenging the award. Crossmark presented the same fundamental argument to the arbitrators who found in favor of the Hazars and declined to join Action as a third-party defendant. Any alleged errors by the arbitrators in applying the substantive law are not subject to review in the courts. Because Crossmark’s arguments at most raise issues as to the application of law, as opposed to presenting fundamental public policy arguments, the trial court could not have set aside the arbitrators’ award on the basis of Crossmark’s first three issues. Consequently, the trial court properly confirmed and refused to vacate the award on public policy grounds. Crossmark argues that by failing to discount the amounts awarded to the Hazars, the arbitration award is an unlawful penalty and can be vacated on public policy grounds. In the alternative, Crossmark argues the award contains an evident miscalculation of numbers and should be modified to discount the amounts awarded to present value. The court finds Crossmark’s contention to be without merit. If an arbitration award includes an award of attorneys’ fees, a trial court may not award additional attorneys’ fees for enforcing or appealing the confirmation of the award, unless the arbitration agreement provides otherwise. Thus, there is no legal basis for awarding additional attorneys’ fees for enforcing or appealing the confirmation of the award. The Hazars could not show they were entitled to an award of additional attorneys’ fees as a matter of law; therefore, the trial court erred by including such fees in the judgment. The court modifies the trial court’s judgment to delete the award of the additional attorneys’ fees for enforcing the award, for appealing to this court, and for potentially appealing to the supreme court. OPINION:Moseley, J.; Moseley, O’Neill and Lagarde, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.