Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Deislinger, 86-33
| Decision Date | 16 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-33,86-33 |
| Citation | 711 S.W.2d 771,289 Ark. 248 |
| Parties | DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., Appellant, v. Betty Lou DEISLINGER, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings by Peter G. Kumpe & Walter McSpadden, Little Rock, for appellant.
Robert L. Brown, Little Rock, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the action of the circuit court that set aside an arbitration award. In setting aside the award the court made three findings: (1) that the transcript of the arbitration hearing was incomplete, (2) that the arbitrators rejected relevant evidence and (3) that the arbitration panel exhibited partiality in favor of the appellant. We do not agree with any of the reasons stated for setting aside the award; therefore, we reverse the order of the circuit court.
On November 18, 1981, the appellant and the appellee entered into an agreement whereby the appellee was to receive $18,000.00 over a period of three months. The payments were to be made in three equal payments of $6,000.00. The appellee agreed that she would remain in the appellant's employment for thirty-six (36) months. On January 27, 1982, the appellee submitted her resignation. Approximately one month later the appellant demanded repayment of $6,955.17, representing previously advanced payments. The appellee refused repayment and on August 31, 1982, the appellant filed a claim against Deislinger for $13,950.00. The appellee filed an answer denying the claim and counterclaimed for $25,000.00 damages for breach of contract.
Subsequently the parties voluntarily agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration. Three members were selected to hear the dispute; however, on the day scheduled for the hearing one member failed to appear. Upon agreement of the parties, the hearing proceeded with the two-member panel. The panel proceeded in accordance with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) Code of Arbitration Procedures. During the hearing the arbitrators refused to admit evidence concerning the appellant's payments to other employees. The arbitrators found this to be irrelevant. The reviewing court found that this evidence should have been admitted pursuant to Unif.R.Evid. 406.
The panel awarded appellant the sum of $7,813.70 and denied appellee's counterclaim. Upon the petition of the appellee, the Pulaski Circuit Court set aside the arbitration award. This appeal is from that order.
The Arkansas arbitration and award procedures are set forth in Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34-501 (Supp.1985) et. seq. Vacating an arbitration award is specifically controlled by Section 522. Arkansas Stat.Ann. § 34-522(a)(2) states: "Upon application of a party, the Court shall vacate an award where ... there was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party." This statute further provides: "But the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a Court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award."
In the instant case the court found that the panel demonstrated on numerous occasions their bias in favor of the appellant. Subsection (2), quoted above, appears to be the only statutory ground used by the court in setting aside the award. We find that no partiality was demonstrated.
56 A.L.R.3d 697 (1973), Setting Aside Arbitration Award on the Ground of Interest or Bias of Arbitrators, states that it is well established that the interest, partiality, or bias which will overturn an arbitration award must be certain and direct, and not remote, uncertain or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Ins. Co. v. Cazort
...though our state act is more restrictive, cases construing Arkansas law reflected this same policy. See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Deislinger, 289 Ark. 248, 711 S.W.2d 771 (1986); Bob Ladd, Inc. v. Adcock, 633 F.Supp. 241 (E.D.Ark.1986); Wessell Bros. Found. Drilling Co. v. Crossett Publ......
-
Kilgore v. Mullenax, CV–16–238
...shall confirm an award unless grounds are established to support vacating or modifying the award." Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Deislinger , 289 Ark. 248, 251, 711 S.W.2d 771, 772 (1986) (citing Wessell v. Crossett Public Sch. Dist. , 287 Ark. 415, 701 S.W.2d 99 (1985) ).A. Does the FAA ap......
-
Hart v. McChristian
...nor the failure to follow the rules of evidence is a ground for vacating an arbitration award. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Deislinger, 289 Ark. 248, 711 S.W.2d 771 (1986). Furthermore, although some courts have recognized a need for remand where an arbitrators' award is "patently ambiguou......
-
Anthony v. Kaplan, 95-1270
...admissible under the rules of evidence, is not a statutory ground for vacating the arbitration award. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Deislinger, 289 Ark. 248, 711 S.W.2d 771 (1986). ...
-
The Addition of the "manifest Disregard of the Law" Defense to Georgia's Arbitration Code and Potential Conflicts With Federal Law
...& Potomac R.R. v. Transp. Communications Int'l Union, 973 F.2d 276, 281 (4th Cir. 1992)). [20]. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Deislinger, 711 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Ark. 1986) ("Simply being dissatisfied with the results is not a good reason for setting aside the award."); see also Law in Disarra......