Pruett v. Williams
| Citation | 623 So.2d 1115 |
| Parties | Thad H. PRUETT, et al. v. Pat WILLIAMS. 1911935. |
| Decision Date | 16 July 1993 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Marvin H. Campbell, Montgomery, for appellants.
D. Coleman Yarbrough, Montgomery, for appellee.
Pat Williams sued Thad Pruett, James Sharpe, and Noel Wadsworth as the partners of Pruett-Sharpe Construction Company, a partnership, alleging that the partnership had breached a contract to pay Williams an architect's fee of $100,500. The dispute arose over the planning of an apartment complex in Auburn.
In the contract, both parties had agreed to arbitration of the claim with the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter "AAA"). 1 The AAA provided the parties with a list of names and biographical information on potential arbitrators. The parties chose John W. Adams, Jr., as the arbitrator. On August 24, 1992, the arbitrator awarded Williams $100,500 in architect's fees and found that there had been no novation.
On August 27, 1992, Williams filed a motion for summary judgment based on the arbitrator's award, rather than waiting to see if the partnership would appeal the arbitrator's award. The partnership filed a cross-motion, requesting that the court vacate the arbitration award. On September 2, 1992, the partnership filed an appeal of the arbitration award with this Court pursuant to § 6-6-15, Ala.Code 1975. The circuit clerk then entered the arbitrator's award as the judgment of the circuit court as is required by § 6-6-15. The circuit court did not set aside the judgment within 10 days as is provided in § 6-6-15; thus, the judgment became final and the arbitration award appealable.
The partnership argues that the arbitration award should be set aside because, it says, the arbitrator committed fraud by misstating certain biographical information. The partnership also argues that the arbitrator failed to address every defense presented by it.
Section 6-6-14 provides:
"An award made substantially in compliance with the provisions of this article is conclusive between the parties thereto and their privies as to the matter submitted and cannot be inquired into to or impeached for want of form or for irregularity if the award determines the matter or controversy submitted, and such award is final, unless the arbitrators are guilty of fraud, partiality or corruption in making it."
First, the partnership specifically claims that the arbitrator failed to notify the AAA that he was no longer associated with the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birmingham News Co. v. Horn
...the appeal. No additional notice of appeal was required to be filed after the entry of the final judgment on remand. In Pruett v. Williams, 623 So.2d 1115 (Ala.1993), the Court accepted a notice of appeal filed "pursuant to § 6-6-15," after an arbitrator's award but before the entry of the ......
-
Lanier v. Old Republic Ins. Co.
...an arbitration agreement, the Alabama Supreme Court has applied the AAA to predispute arbitration agreements. See, e.g., Pruett v. Williams, 623 So.2d 1115 (Ala. 1993). Therefore, the court concludes that the AAA applies to pre-dispute arbitration Finally, as does the FAA, the AAA allows fo......
- Williams v. United States
- Murray v. Alonso