3000 Inv. Corp. v. Teed
Decision Date | 28 July 2021 |
Docket Number | A172996 |
Citation | 494 P.3d 378 (Mem),313 Or.App. 619 |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Parties | 3000 INVESTMENT CORP., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Heather A. TEED, individually and as Personal Representative for Ronald L. Teed, Defendant-Appellant. |
George W. Kelly, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Megan K. Houlihan argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Steve D. Larson and Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.
Defendant appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award in plaintiff's favor. She contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the arbitrator did not "exceed[ ] the arbitrator's powers" within the meaning of ORS 36.705(1)(d) in concluding that (1) the parties’ agreement required defendant to perform certain work as part of the agreed-upon "stabilization work" to protect plaintiff's easement on defendant's land; and (2) a provision providing for a "monthly incentive fee" for delay in completion of the "stabilization work" was not void as against public policy. On review for legal error, Nieto v. City of Talent , 295 Or.App. 625, 629, 436 P.3d 82 (2019), we affirm.
As we have explained, when an arbitrator is empowered to decide a legal issue, the arbitrator acts within the arbitrator's powers by deciding the issue, even if the arbitrator decides it in a way a reviewing court thinks is incorrect:
"
Nieto , 295 Or.App. at 629, 436 P.3d 82 ( ). Although certain legal or factual errors can be so egregious so as to be said to "exceed[ ] the arbitrator's powers," it is only those "so grossly erroneous as to strike at the heart of the decision-making process." Brewer , 248 Or. at 562-63, 436 P.2d 547 ; see also Native Sun v. L & H Development, Inc. , 149 Or.App. 623, 629, 944 P.2d 995 (1997), rev. den. , 327 Or. 82, 961 P.2d 216 (1998) ( ). Pertinent to this case, we frequently have held that alleged errors by an arbitrator in interpreting and applying the provisions of a contract do not constitute the sort of "gross error" that would permit a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Floor Solutions, LLC v. Johnson
..." and those errors are "so grossly erroneous as to strike at the heart of the decision-making process." 3000 Investment Corp. v. Teed , 313 Or App 619, 620, 494 P.3d 378 (2021) (quoting Brewer , 248 Or. at 561-62, 436 P.2d 547 (brackets in original)). Neither our court, nor the Supreme Cour......
- In re Dickson
-
McKeown v. McKeown
...Id. at 563, 436 P.2d 547. Thus, the trial court had erred in vacating the arbitration award. Id. ; see also 3000 Investment Corp. v. Teed , 313 Or. App. 619, 620, 494 P.3d 378 (2021) (following Brewer standard). In Nieto v. City of Talent , we repeated the explanation that " ‘the grounds fo......