A IH RM: and Opinion [ilcd March 2 I, 20 13.
( In I’Iie Itnirt Lii 411a1i ;IIftI! Oistrirt tii kxaL’ at a11ai No, 05.-I 2-00050-C V
I3ERYL GOLI)NIAN, Appellant V. RUSSELL BUCHANAN, Appeilce
On Appeal from the (ount Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-10-1038-D
OPINION Before Justices Lang—Miers. Murphy. and Fillmore Opinion by Justice lilirnore Beryl Goldman appeals the trial court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award in
favor of Russell Buchanan. in three issues, Goldman argues the trial court erred by confirming
the award because (1) the arbitrators refused Goldman’s request to conduct relevant discovery,
(2) the arbitrators’ refusal to allow the discovery resulted in an arbitration hearing that
substantially prejudiced Goldman’s rights, and (3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers and
manifestly disregarded the law in their calculation of the damages awarded to Goldman. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
Goldman contracted with Buchanan, an architect. to design a house and with Lawrence
Wallace d/b/a Lawrence A. Wallace Construction to build the house. Goldman was not satisfied
with the house as constructed and sued Buchanan and Wallace for negligence and breach of contract. Based on the terms of the two contracts, the thai court ordered that Goldman’s claims
be submitted to binding arbitration. Prior to (lie arbitration, Goldman settled his claims against
Wallace lbr S I .000,000.
The arbitrators found that the house. “as designed and constructed, had material
construction deficiencies.” They also found that Buchanan failed to meet the applicable standard
of care by not observing and addressing readily observable construction defects and that
Goldman had been damaged. The arbitrators awarded Goldman $643,228 for the cost of repair
and remediation work to place the house in “an appropriate condition” and $196,300 for
attorneys’ fees. The award was reduced by the $1,000,000 that Goldman had already recovered
from Wallace, resulting in a net award of “$0.00” for Goldman’s claims against Buchanan.
Buchanan filed a motion requesting the trial court confirm the arbitration award.
Goldman filed a competing motion requesting the trial court vacate the award because (I) the
arbitrators refused to permit him to obtain and present evidence of “financial misdeeds” by
Buchanan and Wallace and then ruled he failed to provide sufficient evidence that financial
misdeeds occurred, and (2) the arbitrators manifestly disregarded Texas law as it applies to
damages. Attached to Goldman’s motion to vacate were, among other documents, copies of a
motion to compel discovery responses filed by Goldman in the arbitration and the arbitrators’
interim ruling on discovery issues. In the interim nzling the arbitrators denied Goldman’s
request to issue subpoenas for Buchanan’s bank account records because the request “appears to
be a fishing expedition unrelated to the core issues in this case.” The arbitrators also denied
Goldman’s requests for information relating to Wallace’s finances and to any financial
transactions between Wallace and Buchanan as being not relevant to the arbitration or not helpful
to the arbitrators.
—2— At the hearing in the trial court on the competing motions, Goldman attempted to
tntroduce a number ol exhibits from the arbitration hearing. Except for the arbitration award,
Buchanan oblected to each exhibit on the basis that Goldman had fbiled to bring a record of the
arbitration hearing to the trial court. The trial court sustained Buchanan’s obiections and none of
Goldman’s exhibits, except for the arbitration award, were admitted into evidence. The trial
court denied Goldman’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted Buchanan’s motion
to confirm the award.
Analysis
We review de novo a district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award, based on
the entire record, Sick/more Eneigy v. Maxus (U.S.) Exploration Co., 345 S.W.3d 672, 677 (Tex.
App.—-Dallas 2011, pet. denied); Aneor Holdings, LLC v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, Inc.,
294 S.W.3d 818, 826 (‘fex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). Texas law favors the arbitration of
disputes. E. Tex. Salt Water Disposal Co., Inc. v. Werline, 307 S.W.3d 267, 271 (Tex. 2010); see
aLvo Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aidridge, No. 06-1084, 2012 WL 3870493, at *5 (Tex. Aug.
17, 2012) (op. on reh’g). An arbitration award has the same effect as a judgment of a court of
last resort and is entitled to great deference by the courts CVN Grp., Inc. v. Delgado, 95 S.W,3d
234, 238 (Tex. 2002); Crossmark, Inc. v. Hazar, 124 S.W.3d 422, 429 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004,
pet. denied). Judicial review of an arbitration award is extraordinarily narrow and focuses on the
integrity of the process, not the propriety of the result. Ancor Holdings, LLC., 294 S.W.3d at
826; Mver c. Americo Li!i, Inc., 232 S.W.3d 401, 407—08 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).
We must indulge every reasonable presumption to uphold the arbitrator’s decision, CViV Grp.
Inc., 95 S.W.3d at 238; Skidmore Energy, inc., 345 S.W.3d at 677.
l (ioldman has not complained in this appeal about the trial cou’s evidentia mlings. “A reviewing court must have a sullicient record of the arbitration proceedings and the
party challenging the award must have properly preserved its complaint lust as if the award
‘were a court judgment on appeal.’” Quinn t Nqfto Traders. Inc.. 360 S.W.3d 713, 719 ([cx.
App.-—L)allas 2012, pet. denied) (citing Naii, Traderc. Inc. v. Quinn. 339 S.W.3d 84, 101 (Tex.),
ccii. denied, 132 S. Ct. 455 (2011)). When a non-prevailing party seeks to vacate an arbitration
award, he has the burden in the trial court of bringing forth a complete record of the arbitration
proceeding and establishing any basis that would warrant vacating the award. &atewide
Remodeling, Inc. v. Williams, 244 S.W.3d 564, 568 (fex. App.—DaIIas 2008, no pet.); Home
Owners Mgmt Enters. Inc. it Dean, 230 S.W.3d 766, 769 (rex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).
Further, without a complete record of the evidence presented to the arbitrator at the arbitration
proceedings, there can be no appellate review of the arbitrators’ decision. Williams, 244 S.W.3d
at 568; see also Thomas Peiroleum. Inc. v. Mont, 355 S.W.3d 94.98 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (“lack of a record cripples the review of the arbitration panel’s order”).
In his first two issues, Goldman contends the trial court erred by confirming the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
A IH RM: and Opinion [ilcd March 2 I, 20 13.
( In I’Iie Itnirt Lii 411a1i ;IIftI! Oistrirt tii kxaL’ at a11ai No, 05.-I 2-00050-C V
I3ERYL GOLI)NIAN, Appellant V. RUSSELL BUCHANAN, Appeilce
On Appeal from the (ount Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-10-1038-D
OPINION Before Justices Lang—Miers. Murphy. and Fillmore Opinion by Justice lilirnore Beryl Goldman appeals the trial court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award in
favor of Russell Buchanan. in three issues, Goldman argues the trial court erred by confirming
the award because (1) the arbitrators refused Goldman’s request to conduct relevant discovery,
(2) the arbitrators’ refusal to allow the discovery resulted in an arbitration hearing that
substantially prejudiced Goldman’s rights, and (3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers and
manifestly disregarded the law in their calculation of the damages awarded to Goldman. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
Goldman contracted with Buchanan, an architect. to design a house and with Lawrence
Wallace d/b/a Lawrence A. Wallace Construction to build the house. Goldman was not satisfied
with the house as constructed and sued Buchanan and Wallace for negligence and breach of contract. Based on the terms of the two contracts, the thai court ordered that Goldman’s claims
be submitted to binding arbitration. Prior to (lie arbitration, Goldman settled his claims against
Wallace lbr S I .000,000.
The arbitrators found that the house. “as designed and constructed, had material
construction deficiencies.” They also found that Buchanan failed to meet the applicable standard
of care by not observing and addressing readily observable construction defects and that
Goldman had been damaged. The arbitrators awarded Goldman $643,228 for the cost of repair
and remediation work to place the house in “an appropriate condition” and $196,300 for
attorneys’ fees. The award was reduced by the $1,000,000 that Goldman had already recovered
from Wallace, resulting in a net award of “$0.00” for Goldman’s claims against Buchanan.
Buchanan filed a motion requesting the trial court confirm the arbitration award.
Goldman filed a competing motion requesting the trial court vacate the award because (I) the
arbitrators refused to permit him to obtain and present evidence of “financial misdeeds” by
Buchanan and Wallace and then ruled he failed to provide sufficient evidence that financial
misdeeds occurred, and (2) the arbitrators manifestly disregarded Texas law as it applies to
damages. Attached to Goldman’s motion to vacate were, among other documents, copies of a
motion to compel discovery responses filed by Goldman in the arbitration and the arbitrators’
interim ruling on discovery issues. In the interim nzling the arbitrators denied Goldman’s
request to issue subpoenas for Buchanan’s bank account records because the request “appears to
be a fishing expedition unrelated to the core issues in this case.” The arbitrators also denied
Goldman’s requests for information relating to Wallace’s finances and to any financial
transactions between Wallace and Buchanan as being not relevant to the arbitration or not helpful
to the arbitrators.
—2— At the hearing in the trial court on the competing motions, Goldman attempted to
tntroduce a number ol exhibits from the arbitration hearing. Except for the arbitration award,
Buchanan oblected to each exhibit on the basis that Goldman had fbiled to bring a record of the
arbitration hearing to the trial court. The trial court sustained Buchanan’s obiections and none of
Goldman’s exhibits, except for the arbitration award, were admitted into evidence. The trial
court denied Goldman’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted Buchanan’s motion
to confirm the award.
Analysis
We review de novo a district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award, based on
the entire record, Sick/more Eneigy v. Maxus (U.S.) Exploration Co., 345 S.W.3d 672, 677 (Tex.
App.—-Dallas 2011, pet. denied); Aneor Holdings, LLC v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, Inc.,
294 S.W.3d 818, 826 (‘fex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). Texas law favors the arbitration of
disputes. E. Tex. Salt Water Disposal Co., Inc. v. Werline, 307 S.W.3d 267, 271 (Tex. 2010); see
aLvo Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aidridge, No. 06-1084, 2012 WL 3870493, at *5 (Tex. Aug.
17, 2012) (op. on reh’g). An arbitration award has the same effect as a judgment of a court of
last resort and is entitled to great deference by the courts CVN Grp., Inc. v. Delgado, 95 S.W,3d
234, 238 (Tex. 2002); Crossmark, Inc. v. Hazar, 124 S.W.3d 422, 429 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004,
pet. denied). Judicial review of an arbitration award is extraordinarily narrow and focuses on the
integrity of the process, not the propriety of the result. Ancor Holdings, LLC., 294 S.W.3d at
826; Mver c. Americo Li!i, Inc., 232 S.W.3d 401, 407—08 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).
We must indulge every reasonable presumption to uphold the arbitrator’s decision, CViV Grp.
Inc., 95 S.W.3d at 238; Skidmore Energy, inc., 345 S.W.3d at 677.
l (ioldman has not complained in this appeal about the trial cou’s evidentia mlings. “A reviewing court must have a sullicient record of the arbitration proceedings and the
party challenging the award must have properly preserved its complaint lust as if the award
‘were a court judgment on appeal.’” Quinn t Nqfto Traders. Inc.. 360 S.W.3d 713, 719 ([cx.
App.-—L)allas 2012, pet. denied) (citing Naii, Traderc. Inc. v. Quinn. 339 S.W.3d 84, 101 (Tex.),
ccii. denied, 132 S. Ct. 455 (2011)). When a non-prevailing party seeks to vacate an arbitration
award, he has the burden in the trial court of bringing forth a complete record of the arbitration
proceeding and establishing any basis that would warrant vacating the award. &atewide
Remodeling, Inc. v. Williams, 244 S.W.3d 564, 568 (fex. App.—DaIIas 2008, no pet.); Home
Owners Mgmt Enters. Inc. it Dean, 230 S.W.3d 766, 769 (rex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).
Further, without a complete record of the evidence presented to the arbitrator at the arbitration
proceedings, there can be no appellate review of the arbitrators’ decision. Williams, 244 S.W.3d
at 568; see also Thomas Peiroleum. Inc. v. Mont, 355 S.W.3d 94.98 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (“lack of a record cripples the review of the arbitration panel’s order”).
In his first two issues, Goldman contends the trial court erred by confirming the
arbitration award because the arbitrators erred by denying his request for discovery relating to
Buchanan’s and Wallace’s financial records and, without the requested discovery, the arbitration
hearing was conducted in a manner that substantially prejudiced his rights. Goldman attached to
his motion to vacate a copy of the motion to compel filed in the arbitration and the arbitrators’
interim ruling denying the requested discovery as a “fishing expedition” and as not seeking
relevant infonnation. Goldman did not, however, provide to the district court a complete record
of the arbitration proceedings that would establish the requested information was either relevant
or necessary for Goldman’s case. See Williams, 244 S.W.3d at 569 (neither attorney’s
recollection of testimony before arbitrator nor attachments to motion to vacate provide complete
record of arbitration proceedings). Therefore, we cannot conclude the trial court erred by
-4- cn hrniiir’ the iwan I despite ( ioldman s dl Ic ‘at ion ol an erroneous discovery mIme hv the
arhitrators. Vv e resolve ( oldnian s Iirst two issues aeainst him.
In his third mssue. ( ,oldman asserts the arbitrators exceeded their powers and manifestly
disrecarded the law in calculatine damaees, Goldman Fulcd to introduce a record ot the
arhitration proceedings before the district court and, thcretore, this (‘ourt has no record of what
evidence or law was presented to the arbitrators on the issue of recoverable damages.
Accordingly, we must presume the evidence supported the award. See iVa,fIa Traders, Inc., 339
S.W.3d at 102 (“If error cannot be demonstrated, an award must he presumed correct.”);
Centex/ Vestal v. Friendship W Baptist Church, 3 14 S.W.3d 677, 684 (Tex App.— Dallas 2010, .
pet, denied (“The general rule is that without an arbitration transcript, we must presume the
arbitration evidence adequately supported an award.”); Dean, 230 S.W.3d at 769 (without record
establishing what evidence was presented to arbitrator, appellate court cannot conclude
arbitrator’s award maniftstly disregarded the law); Grwc’rk cx ref. I orwerk v. ilillianiso,, Cu/i.
Grain, Inc., No. 03-h 0-00549-CV, 2012 WI. 593481 at *6 (Tex. App—Austin Feb. 23, 2012. ,
pet. denied) (mem. op.). We resolve Goldman’s third issue against him.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award.
--_
ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
120050 F.P05 Qnatrt of Aiaki Yift! 3iitrirt nf exai it Oatta JUDGMENT
BERYL GOLDMAN, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4. Dallas County, Texas No. 05- 1 2-00050-CV V Trial Court Cause No. CC-l0-1038-D. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore. RUSSELL BUCHANAN, Appellee Justices Lang-Miers and Murphy participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee Russell Buchanan recover his costs of this appeal from appellant Beryl Goldman.
st 21 Judgment entered this day of March, 2013.
( —..-.—.—