Tru Green Corp. v. Sampson

Decision Date08 February 1991
Docket NumberNo. 89-CA-2225-MR,89-CA-2225-MR
Citation802 S.W.2d 951
PartiesTRU GREEN CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Ernest L. SAMPSON, Jerald L. Colyer, as Agents for the Former Shareholders of Excelawn Corporation of America; Kathie McDonald and Edwin H. Perry, Appellees.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Richard M. Sullivan and Edward F. Busch, Conliffe, Sandmann, Gorman & Sullivan, Louisville, and Stephen P. Stanczak, Oak Brook, Ill., for appellant.

Edwin H. Perry and Kathie M. McDonald, Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, Louisville, for appellees.

Before DYCHE, EMBERTON and GUDGEL, JJ.

DYCHE, Judge.

The sole issue for decision herein is whether a Kentucky court may, under the Uniform Arbitration Act (KRS 417.045-.240), enforce an arbitrator's award rendered outside the Commonwealth following a hearing also outside the Commonwealth. We answer in the negative, reverse the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court and remand this action for an order dismissing the application for confirmation. (KRS 417.150).

Appellees Sampson and Colyer and appellant entered into an agreement which included a provision for arbitration of certain disputes which might arise under the agreement. The arbitration was to be "held at Cincinnati, Ohio, in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association...."

Disputes did in fact arise and were submitted for arbitration as above described. The arbitration hearing took place in Cincinnati on February 21, 1989; on June 19, 1989, the arbitrator rendered an award in Cincinnati which included reimbursement of Colyer's and Sampson's attorney fees in the amount of $21,049.00. Appellant paid the other parts of the award, but protested the fee reimbursement; no statutory motion to vacate (KRS 417.160) or other formal objection was made.

On September 26, 1989, Sampson and Colyer, by counsel (the other appellees, McDonald and Perry), filed an application in the Jefferson Circuit Court seeking confirmation of the award. Without any hearing or other opportunity for appellant to be heard, the trial court entered a judgment confirming the award and awarding costs and attorney fees of the confirmation proceeding. This appeal followed.

Appellant argues that the Jefferson Circuit Court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter of this controversy. We agree. This action was initiated, litigated and appealed pursuant to the Uniform Arbitration Act. Accordingly, that statute governs and not the statutes and constitutional provisions delineating the general subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court, as appellees argue.

KRS 417.150 reads, in part, "Upon application of a party, the court shall confirm an award...." The section of the Uniform Arbitration Act defining "court" and conferring jurisdiction (KRS 417.200) says:

The term "court" means any court of competent jurisdiction of this state. The making of an agreement described in KRS 417.050 providing for arbitration in this state confers jurisdiction on the court to enforce the agreement under this chapter and to enter judgment on an award thereunder.

(Emphasis added.)

The plain meaning of that statute is that the agreement, wherever made, must provide for the arbitration itself to be in the Commonwealth in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Ashley River v. Ashley River Properties
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 2007
    ...South Bend R.R. v. N. Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist., 184 Ill.2d 151, 234 Ill.Dec. 395, 703 N.E.2d 7, 9 (1998); Tru Green Corp. v. Sampson, 802 S.W.2d 951, 953 (Ky.App.1991). Accordingly, applying the plain language of the Act and the cases of other states interpreting similar provisions, S......
  • CPM Productions, Inc. v. Mobb Deep, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 27, 2000
    ...contract what court may review an action to enforce an award and effectively provides the basis of jurisdiction); Tru Green Corp. v. Sampson, 802 S.W.2d 951, 953 (Ky.App.1991) (holding that the plain meaning of the counterpart provision in the Kentucky Uniform Act reveals that the arbitrati......
  • Chicago Southshore and South Bend R.R. v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1998
    ...Gottesman, 135 Misc. 92, 236 N.Y.S. 623 (1929), Stancioff v. Hertz, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 843, 406 N.E.2d 1318 (1980), and Tru Green Corp. v. Sampson, 802 S.W.2d 951 (Ky.App.1991). Southshore's reliance on these cases is clearly misplaced, and perhaps somewhat disingenuous. In both Stephanie's an......
  • Wilder v. Absorption Corp.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Kentucky
    • June 12, 2003
    ...on the court to enforce the agreement under this chapter and to enter judgment on an award thereunder."); Tru Green Corp. v. Sampson, Ky.App., 802 S.W.2d 951, 952 (1991) ("The plain meaning of that statute is that the agreement, wherever made, must provide for the arbitration itself to be i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT