X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Action Box Co. Inc. appeals a judgment denying its motion to modify or vacate an arbitrator’s decision in favor of Panel Prints Inc. HOLDING:Affirmed. A party may appeal a judgment or decree entered under chapter 171 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code or an order: 1. denying an application to compel arbitration; 2. granting an application to stay arbitration; 3. confirming or denying confirmation of an award; 4. modifying or correcting an award; or 5. vacating an award without directing a rehearing. �171.098(a). Under �171.098(a) a party may appeal any final judgment entered under chapter 171 and any order, even if interlocutory, of the five enumerated types. Because the order entered in this case is not one of those five enumerated types, the judgment in this case is appealable if it is a judgment entered under chapter 171. Chapter 171 does not purport to limit the types of judgments that may be entered with regard to arbitrations, and, if the judgment in this case is not one that was entered under chapter 171, then it is not apparent under what statute or other authority it could have been entered. The court does not conclude that the judgment in this case is merely interlocutory because it disposed of all parties and requests for relief that were pending before the trial court. The court finds no basis to conclude that the judgment in this case falls outside the general rule allowing the appeal of final judgments. Action Box does not contend that the arbitrator decided an issue that was outside the scope of the agreement, but merely that he decided an issue within the scope of that agreement incorrectly. Because this would not amount to exceeding his powers (even if true), Action Box’s issue affords no basis for relief. Because there is no allegation in this case that the federal act applies here, Action Box has not demonstrated that the manifest disregard standard has any application to this case. Accordingly, the court declines to apply it and overrules Action Box’s second issue, asserting a violation of that standard. An arbitration award made in direct contravention of constitutional protections, such as wholly disregarding the requirements for perfecting a mechanic’s lien on a homestead, would be of such a magnitude as to violate public policy. Because the contract interpretation errors complained of by Action Box in this case do not begin to approach such a fundamental policy contravention, the court overrules this issue. OPINION:Edelman, J.; Edelman, Frost and Guzman, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.