2021 Ohio 1785
Ohio2021Background
- Parties arbitrated disputes under their operating agreement; the arbitrator issued an award on December 6, 2018 after a multi-day hearing.
- BST filed to confirm the award in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court on December 6, 2018; Wolgang filed a petition to vacate in California on December 7, 2018 but did not file an R.C. 2711.13 motion in Ohio before the Ohio confirmation hearing.
- The Ohio trial court held a confirmation hearing on December 27, 2018, denied Wolgang’s motion to stay or continue, and confirmed the arbitration award on January 15, 2019.
- Wolgang later filed an Ohio motion to vacate (March 5, 2019, within 90 days of the award) and appealed the confirmation; the Eighth District held the court must wait the full three months before confirming.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed: R.C. 2711.13’s three-month period is a maximum window (not a guaranteed waiting period); when an application to confirm is filed before that window expires, an opposing party must timely file an R.C. 2711.13 motion (or otherwise alert the court) before or by the confirmation hearing, and trial courts retain discretion to stay or set deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BST) | Defendant's Argument (Wolgang) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2711.09/.13 require a court to delay confirmation until the 3‑month R.C. 2711.13 period expires | No—court may confirm earlier if no timely R.C. 2711.13 motion is filed | Yes—the statute guarantees a full 3 months to move to vacate/modify/correct and confirmation must wait | Held: The 3‑month period is a maximum window, not a guaranteed delay; confirmation may proceed if no timely R.C. 2711.13 motion is filed before or by the hearing |
| Whether a stay/continuance motion suffices to prevent confirmation or substitute for an R.C. 2711.13 motion | A stay alone does not replace an R.C. 2711.13 motion and cannot prevent confirmation as a matter of right | A stay/notice of intent to file should preserve rights pending 3‑month period | Held: A stay motion is discretionary and by itself does not operate as an R.C. 2711.13 motion that prevents confirmation |
| Whether a late R.C. 2711.13 motion (filed after confirmation but within 90 days) should be considered | BST: Late Ohio motion cannot undo confirmation where no Ohio R.C. 2711.13 motion was filed before confirmation | Wolgang: Motion filed within 90 days should be timely and considered | Held: Motion filed after confirmation and after notice of appeal could not be considered by trial court; when an application to confirm is filed before the 90 days elapse, an opposing R.C. 2711.13 motion must be filed on or before the confirmation hearing (even a placeholder motion suffices) |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren Edn. Assn. v. Warren City Bd. of Edn., 18 Ohio St.3d 170 (1985) (court must grant timely confirmation unless a timely motion to vacate/modify/correct is filed and cause shown)
- Galion v. Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps., 71 Ohio St.3d 620 (1995) (R.C. 2711.09 and R.C. 2711.13 operate independently and in tandem)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Local Union No. 200, 42 Ohio St.2d 516 (1975) (grounds to vacate an arbitration award are limited and can be difficult to prove)
- Zumwalde v. Madeira & Indian Hill Joint Fire Dist., 128 Ohio St.3d 492 (2011) (when statutory language is plain and unambiguous courts apply it as written)
- Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Porterfield, 24 Ohio St.2d 24 (1970) (courts cannot rewrite legislation)
- Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 63 Ohio St.3d 708 (1992) (Ohio public policy favors arbitration as expeditious, economical dispute resolution)
- Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati v. Aetna Health, Inc., 108 Ohio St.3d 185 (2006) (federal arbitration-law principles are persuasive in construing Ohio’s arbitration statutes)