Judge Frye of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas says no [PDF], in a lengthy and well-reasoned opinion touching on a host of arbitration issues, and which includes rare citations to Civ.R. 1(C) and Civ.R. 2.

Two former law partners agreed to arbitrate a dispute regarding the dissolution of their firm.  The arbitrator rendered an award, and one of the partners filed a motion to vacate pursuant to R.C. 2711.13, which places a ninety-day limit on such motions.  Shortly after filing, the motion to vacate was voluntarily dismissed, purportedly pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A).  Just less than one year later, the motion to vacate the award was re-filed, this time purportedly pursuant to the savings statute, R.C. 2305.19(A).

The court rejected the motion to vacate as untimely, holding that Rule 41(A) and the savings statute do not apply to “special proceedings” such as arbitrations:

Although long ago abolishing the distinction between suits in law and in equity (as recognized in Civ.R. 2), Ohio still recognizes a category of “special statutory proceedings” that is somewhat different from ordinary civil cases.

These special statutory proceedings are reflected in Civ.R. 1(C):

These rules, to the extent that they would by their nature be clearly inapplicable, shall not apply to procedure . . . in all . . . special statutory proceedings.

Confirmation or vacation of an arbitration award are two such special statutory proceedings to which Rule 41(A) does not apply.  Because Rule 41(A) doesn’t apply, neither does the savings statute.  “Were the law otherwise,” the court explained, “the three-month limitation period would be meaningless and could be extended to 15 months or more, undermining the expediency promised by arbitration.”

The take-away: courts mean it when they say that the law favors arbitration because it leads to more expeditious resolutions of disputes than the public court system.  The arbitration statutes create some unique rights and obligations.  Be aware of them, and enforce them promptly.

The case is Greenwald v. Shayne, 2009-Ohio-3384.

This post was written by Jeffrey M. Nye.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 19th, 2009 at 3:21 pm and is filed under Arbitration, Court Cases, Procedure. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.