Roscoe v. Jones
| Decision Date | 26 October 1990 |
| Citation | 571 So.2d 1043 |
| Parties | Frank J. ROSCOE v. David JONES, Jr., individually; and David Jones, Jr. & Associates, Inc. 89-1162. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
W. James Ellison, Birmingham, for appellant.
Hub Harrington of Najjar, Denaburg, Meyerson, Zarzaur, Max, Wright & Schwartz, Birmingham, for appellees.
Frank J. Roscoe appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award of $10,359.00 in favor of David Jones, Jr. and David Jones, Jr., & Associates, Inc. (together referred to herein as "Jones"). We affirm. The appellant raises three issues for our consideration on this appeal:
1. Whether the Roscoe-Jones predispute arbitration agreement was a legal nullity at its inception and thus could not be the basis for a lawful, judicially enforceable arbitration award because of Ala.Code 1975 § 8-1-41(3).
2. Whether the arbitration award should be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator made a mistake, acted in bad faith, or showed partiality and bias in favor of Jones.
3. Whether the award should be set aside on the basis of fraud and deception in obtaining the award.
The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows:
In September 1987, Roscoe and Jones entered into a contract whereby Jones was to provide architectural services for Roscoe. Specifically, Jones agreed to provide a complete set of architectural, electrical, and mechanical drawings. These plans were for the conversion of a three-story warehouse into an office, meeting, and reception center. On September 28, 1987, Jones and Roscoe entered into a contract styled "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect." The contract contained the following provision:
The focus of attention centered on the second floor of the warehouse. It was apparently Roscoe's intent to use the second floor as an assembly area for public gatherings and meetings.
The City of Birmingham Buildings and Inspections Department rejected the first set of drawings provided by Jones. Jones submitted a second set of plans for approval and informed the Birmingham Buildings and Inspections Department that the second floor would be used for business purposes only. The Buildings and Inspections Department then approved the second set of plans.
Roscoe did the actual renovation and construction himself. After the completion of the second floor, he applied to the City of Birmingham for a liquor license. The Buildings and Inspections Department then learned of the intended use of the second floor as a public assembly area and refused to grant the liquor license. The Department also required Roscoe to close off part of the second floor until design changes were made and required Roscoe to install three additional stairwells.
Roscoe filed a proceeding under the arbitration provision--Article 9--of the contract with Jones. Roscoe complained that Jones had breached the agreement by failing to provide architectural supervision during the project. Roscoe sought approximately $30,000.00 in damages. Jones counterclaimed, alleging that he had been induced to enter the agreement based upon Roscoe's representation that he would hire a competent general contractor or manager to perform the work. Jones further claimed that Roscoe did not adhere to his drawings and changed the intended use of the second floor and that the change required additional architectural work by Jones. Jones sought $18,590.00 for this extra work.
At the subsequent arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found that Roscoe had breached his contract with Jones and that Jones had done nothing wrong, and ordered that Roscoe indemnify and "hold Jones harmless for work done resulting in building code violations." The arbitrator awarded Jones $10,059.00. The arbitrator also assessed the administrative fees and costs of the American Arbitration Association, totalling $1,517.06, and required Roscoe to pay Jones $300.00 for the portion of costs and fees that had been previously paid by Jones. Roscoe was also required to pay the American Arbitration Association $367.06, the portion of the expenses remaining due. Finally, Roscoe was required to pay to the American Arbitration Association the $25.00 expense of the arbitrator.
On December 1, 1989, Jones filed a petition to confirm the arbitrator's award of $10,059.00 plus the $300.00 in costs and fees assessed against Roscoe. Thereafter, numerous motions were filed by both parties. The motions filed by Roscoe included a motion for review of the arbitrator's award and a motion to set aside and quash the execution of the award. The motions filed by Jones included a motion for a protective order preventing the taking of his deposition; a motion to strike affidavits filed by Roscoe and Kenneth W. Green; and a motion to strike or, in the alternative, to dismiss the motion by Roscoe to review the award. After these motions were filed, the trial court entered an order denying each of Roscoe's motions and granting Jones's motions. The court confirmed the arbitrator's award. Roscoe then filed a motion for summary judgment, a motion for "reconsideration" of the court's order confirming the award, and a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. On April 2, 1990, the trial court entered another order denying these motions. Roscoe now appeals, seeking to set aside the arbitrator's award.
Roscoe first argues that the arbitration agreement contained in the contract was a legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sisters of Visitation v. COCHRAN PLASTERING CO. INC.
...that Warren had a narrow application. Ex parte Brice Building Co., 607 So.2d 132, 134 (Ala.1992) (quoting in part Roscoe v. Jones, 571 So.2d 1043, 1046 (Ala.1990)). This Court also applied the slightest-nexus test in a number of other contexts. See First Real Estate Corp. of Alabama v. Brow......
-
MOUNTAIN HEATING AND COOLING, INC. v. Van Tassel-Proctor, Inc.
...Williams, 591 So.2d 71 (Ala.1991); H.L. Fuller Constr. Co. v. Industrial Dev. Bd. of Vincent, 590 So.2d 218 (Ala.1991); Roscoe v. Jones, 571 So.2d 1043 (Ala.1990); and McKee v. Hendrix, 816 So.2d 30 Other jurisdictions have decided cases in which the parties agreed to "mediate" pursuant to ......
-
RP Industries, Inc. v. S & M EQUIP. CO.
...it is waived,' "quoting ConnTech Dev. Co. v. University of Conn. Educ. Props., Inc., 102 F.3d 677, 685 (2d Cir.1996)), Roscoe v. Jones, 571 So.2d 1043, 1045 (Ala.1990)("Because Roscoe availed himself of the arbitration provision by requesting arbitration, and did nothing to indicate an obje......
-
Ex parte Jones
...Fuller Constr. involved a construction contract.... We restated the Costa standard, but did not go on to apply it.... "In Roscoe v. Jones, 571 So.2d 1043 (Ala.1990), another construction contract case, we reemphasized that Warren has a 'narrow application.' Id. at 607 So.2d at 134. (Emphasi......