191 Conn.App. 143
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiffs hired Bradford Estates, LLC (Bradford) to raise and remodel their Hurricane Sandy–damaged home; relationship soured and Bradford withdrew mid-project.
- Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and other claims; parties later signed a stipulation to arbitrate remaining disputes and withdrew their court filings.
- The stipulation gave a three-member arbitration panel broad supervisory authority to finish the project and to determine costs, with plaintiffs funding an escrow to secure payments.
- On Feb. 4, 2017 the panel issued an award titled “Interim Award/Final Award” with a spreadsheet listing a $76,500 "cost" for cabinetry, $24,643.50 paid to date, and a $51,856.65 balance; the award stated it was final as to costs proven to date but interim as to costs to complete.
- Neither party timely moved to vacate, modify, or correct the Feb. 4 award. After the cabinetry was completed, the panel issued an Aug. 23, 2017 interim (revised) award reducing the cabinetry cost (by ~ $20,000) and clarifying the Feb. 4 cabinetry figure was a placeholder, not a final determination.
- Bradford filed an application to confirm the Feb. 4 award and to void the Aug. 23 award; the trial court denied confirmation. Bradford appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Bradford's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to grant Bradford’s timely application to confirm the Feb. 4, 2017 arbitration award | Plaintiffs argued the Feb. 4 award was not a final determination as to cabinetry and the panel later clarified/reduced it; judicial deference to panel actions allowed the court to deny confirmation | Bradford argued no timely motion to vacate/modify was filed within 30 days, so §52-417 required the court to confirm the Feb. 4 award | Court reversed denial and directed grant of confirmation of Feb. 4 award (court must confirm when no timely §52-420 challenge) |
| Whether the trial court could invalidate or refuse to recognize the Aug. 23, 2017 panel clarification reducing cabinetry costs | Plaintiffs argued the Aug. 23 award was a valid clarification and binding because Bradford failed to challenge it timely | Bradford argued the Aug. 23 award conflicted with and improperly modified the Feb. 4 award and must be voided | Court held Aug. 23 award could not be challenged (Bradford failed to timely seek vacatur/modification), so it is binding and the court properly denied Bradford relief to recover the higher amount |
| Effect of the Feb. 4 award’s language labeling some items as interim vs final | Plaintiffs argued the Feb. 4 award itself signaled costs to complete were interim/placeholders and subject to later adjustment | Bradford argued the spreadsheet item was a final allocation entitling them to full cabinetry payment | Court held the award’s language shows costs to complete were interim; parties were on notice these amounts could be modified by the panel |
| Whether the trial court properly deferred to the panel’s subsequent articulation/clarification | Plaintiffs argued courts must defer to arbitrators’ own clarifications and lack power to upset unchallenged arbitration rulings | Bradford argued confirmation of Feb. 4 necessarily precluded effect of later panel clarification | Court agreed with plaintiffs: tribunal’s clarification stands absent timely challenge; confirmation of Feb. 4 does not nullify unchallenged later panel determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenthal Law Firm, LLC v. Cohen, 165 Conn. App. 467 (Conn. App. 2016) (untimely challenge bars statutory and common-law grounds for vacatur; court must confirm award)
- Directory Assistants, Inc. v. Big Country Vein, L.P., 134 Conn. App. 415 (Conn. App. 2012) (failure to timely move to vacate precludes challenging arbitrability and requires confirmation)
- Wu v. Chang, 264 Conn. 307 (Conn. 2003) (opposition to confirmation may be treated as motion to vacate only if filed within §52-420(b) period)
- Stratek Plastics, Ltd. v. Ibar, 120 Conn. App. 90 (Conn. App. 2010) (trial court lacks discretion to deny confirmation absent defects enumerated in §§52-418/52-419)
- HH East Parcel, LLC v. Handy & Harman, Inc., 287 Conn. 189 (Conn. 2008) (determination of correct level of judicial review over arbitration matters is a question of law)
- All Seasons Services, Inc. v. Guildner, 94 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2006) (courts should defer to an arbitrator’s articulation or clarification of an award)
- Wolf v. Gould, 10 Conn. App. 292 (Conn. App. 1987) (arbitration favored; limited judicial review of awards)