Smith v. YOUNG MOVING AND STORAGE, INC.
Decision Date | 21 December 2004 |
Docket Number | No. COA03-1593.,COA03-1593. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Kay C. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. YOUNG MOVING AND STORAGE, INC., Defendant. |
Hinton, Hewett & Wood, P.A., by Alan B. Hewett, Selma, for plaintiff-appellant.
McGuire Woods, L.L.P., by J. Mark Langdon and Mark N. Hosmer, Charlotte, for defendant-appellee. HUNTER, Judge.
By this appeal Kay C. Smith ("plaintiff"), contends the trial court erroneously confirmed the arbitration award and should have granted plaintiff's motion to vacate said award because the settlement agreement was not a binding and enforceable agreement. Specifically, plaintiff challenges the arbitration award based upon three grounds: (I) the 18 February 2002 letter did not constitute a binding and enforceable settlement agreement; (II) the arbitrator and trial court did not properly identify condition precedents and (III) North Carolina law mandates that arbitration is compellable and irrevocable except with the consent of all parties. We affirm the trial court's order.
In January 1991, plaintiff and Young Moving and Storage, Inc. ("defendant"), entered into a contract whereby defendant would store plaintiff's photographic equipment at its storage facility. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant after defendant could not locate plaintiff's property. After appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision compelling arbitration, plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration on 22 January 2002.
On 18 February 2002, plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to defendant indicating plaintiff was willing to settle the dispute upon terms and conditions requiring the payment of $32,750.00 plus interest over a three year time period. According to the letter, defendant would prepare the settlement agreement and promissory note and the arbitration proceedings and lawsuit would be dismissed. Defendant contends the next day, his counsel sent an unexecuted settlement and mutual release agreement and an unexecuted promissory note to plaintiff's counsel. On 26 April 2002, plaintiff's counsel informed defendant's counsel that plaintiff refused to sign the settlement documents and wanted to proceed with arbitration.
On 12 August 2002, defendant filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. After plaintiff filed a response to deny the motion, an arbitrator was selected who reviewed the documents and conducted a telephone hearing with the parties' counsel. On 17 October 2002, the arbitrator filed an award in favor of defendant which indicated "[t]he settlement agreement reflected in the letter signed by Claimant's counsel, dated February 18, 2002, shall be enforced." Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award on 15 January 2003 and defendant filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award the next month. On 7 June 2003, the trial court entered an order denying plaintiff's motion and confirming the arbitration award. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff first argues the 18 February 2002 letter was not a binding and enforceable settlement agreement. "'[J]udicial review of an arbitration award is confined to [a] determination of whether there exists one of the specific grounds for vacation of an award under the arbitration statute.'" Semon v. Semon, 161 N.C.App. 137, 141, 587 S.E.2d 460, 463 (2003) (quoting Carolina Virginia Fashion Exhibitors v. Gunter, 41 N.C.App. 407, 411, 255 S.E.2d 414, 418 (1979)); see also Sholar Bus. Assocs. v. Davis, 138 N.C.App. 298, 301, 531 S.E.2d 236, 239 (2000)
1). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-567.13(a) (2001) provides:
Plaintiff contends the arbitrator erroneously concluded the 18 February 2002 letter from plaintiff's counsel to defendant's counsel constituted a binding settlement agreement between the parties; rather, plaintiff contends the letter was an unaccepted offer. Plaintiff further argues that even if the offer was accepted, consideration was lacking, there was no mutual assent to all terms and the arbitrator failed to identify condition precedents. These legal arguments are not grounds for vacating an arbitration award under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-567.13. Indeed, Sholar, 138 N.C.App. at 301,531 S.E.2d at 239 (citations omitted).
Cyclone Roofing Co. v. David M. LaFave Co., Inc., 312 N.C. 224, 236, 321 S.E.2d 872, 880 (1984) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we overrule this assignment of error.
Finally, plaintiff contends the arbitrator exceeded his authority by enforcing an invalid settlement agreement and not conducting a full and fair hearing on the merits of her claim. Essentially, plaintiff argues an arbitrator should not be allowed to enforce a contract that does not exist.
Howell, 136 N.C.App. at 830, 526 S.E.2d at 196. In this case, the contract provided in pertinent part:
9. Arbitration: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, the breach thereof, or the goods affected thereby, whether such claims be found in tort or contract shall be settled by arbitration law of the Company's State and under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, provided however, that upon such arbitration the arbitrator or arbitrators may not vary or modify any of the foregoing provisions.
Plaintiff alleged defendant breached its contract with plaintiff by losing her photographic equipment. Plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration and the parties began settlement discussions. According to defendant, the parties reached an oral settlement and plaintiff forwarded a 18 February 2002 letter to defendant confirming the settlement terms. The next day, defendant sent a settlement agreement, which included the terms in the 18 February 2002 letter, and release to plaintiff per plaintiff's request. The arbitration proceedings were dismissed in reliance upon the settlement. After plaintiff refused to sign the documents, defendant filed a motion with the American Arbitration Association requesting the assigned arbitrator to enforce the settlement...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. Entertainers, L.L.C. v. City of Rocky Mount
...agreement need not be in writing. Pl.'s Resp. Opp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. [D.E. 43] 3 (citing Smith v. Young Moving & Storage, Inc., 167 N.C. App. 487, 493, 606 S.E.2d 173, 177 (2004) and Currituck Assocs. v. Hollowell, 166 N.C. App. 17, 28, 601 S.E.2d 256, 264 (2004)). The cases American cit......
-
Capps v. NW Sign Industries of North Carolina, Inc., No. COA06-1297 (N.C. App. 8/21/2007)
...when parties assent to the same thing in the same sense, and their minds meet as to all terms." Smith v. Young Moving & Storage, Inc., 167 N.C. App. 487, 493, 606 S.E.2d 173, 177 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As this Court has [t]he intention of the parties to a c......
-
Dalenko v. Peden General Contractors, Inc.
...there exists one of the specific grounds for vacation of an award under the arbitration statute.'" Smith v. Young Moving & Storage, Inc., 167 N.C.App. 487, 488, 606 S.E.2d 173, 175 (2004) (quoting Semon v. Semon, 161 N.C.App. 137, 141, 587 S.E.2d 460, 463 (2003)); see also Fashion Exhibitor......
-
Faison & Gillespie v. Lorant
...have been `only a few cases in which our courts have held that an arbitrator exceeded his powers.'" Smith v. Young Moving & Storage, Inc., 167 N.C.App. 487, 490, 606 S.E.2d 173, 176 (2004) (quoting Howell v. Wilson, 136 N.C.App. 827, 830, 526 S.E.2d 194, 196 (2000)). This Court summarized t......