Domestic Linen Supply Co., Inc. v. Executive Court Med. Assocs., Inc.
2017 Ohio 1216
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Domestic Linen obtained an arbitration award against Executive Court Medical Associates (ECMA) and Graham Johnson on June 5, 2014, and filed to confirm the award in Erie C.P. on Nov. 23, 2015.
- Service of the confirmation application: certified mail to ECMA at 54 Executive Drive produced a return receipt signed by "Nikita White"; certified mail to Johnson at 49 Pawnee Drive was returned as undeliverable.
- Trial court entered judgment confirming the arbitration award on Nov. 30, 2015. Domestic then attempted garnishment; notices were returned undeliverable as to both appellees.
- Appellees moved to vacate the arbitration award and the confirmation judgment on Mar. 3, 2016, alleging they never received notice of the arbitration or confirmation; submitted affidavits stating ECMA no longer occupied the Executive Drive address and Johnson did not reside at Pawnee Drive.
- The trial court granted the motion and vacated the arbitration award on Mar. 11, 2016; Domestic opposed on Mar. 14, 2016 but the trial court on Apr. 6 reaffirmed vacatur. Domestic appealed; this court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting appellees’ motion to vacate before Domestic had an opportunity to respond | Domestic: Civ.R. 6(C) and R.C. 2711.05 require ordinary motion practice; court should have allowed time to respond | Appellees: Any premature grant was harmless because the supporting affidavits show lack of notice and justify vacatur | Court: Trial court committed reversible error by granting the motion before allowing Domestic to respond; remand for consideration of the opposition and reply |
| Whether appellees’ motion to vacate was timely under R.C. 2711.13 (three‑month rule) | Domestic: Appellees failed to serve notice of a motion to vacate within three months after the award was delivered | Appellees: They lacked notice of the award, so the three‑month clock did not start or their attempted service was deficient | Court: Declined to decide on appeal; held issue premature because trial court never considered evidence after full briefing; remanded |
| Whether appellees showed grounds under R.C. 2711.10 to vacate the arbitration award (fraud, misconduct, excess of authority) | Domestic: Appellees’ affidavits and proofs do not establish statutory grounds to vacate | Appellees: Lack of notice and service support vacatur under R.C. 2711.10 grounds or at least relief | Court: Declined to decide on appeal; remanded for trial court to consider these substantive arguments after full briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496 (1996) (appellate court may decide on different grounds only if the evidentiary basis was presented to the trial court)
- Citibank S.D., N.A. v. Wood, 169 Ohio App.3d 269 (2006) (for R.C. 2711.13 purposes, courts use the postmark date to determine when an arbitration award was "delivered")