Downey v. Sharp
51 A.3d 573
Md.2012Background
- Arbitration award dated December 22, 2008 under the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act (Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings art.).
- Downeys sought to confirm the award; Sharp sought to vacate it.
- Arbitrator denied an express easement and an implied easement by necessity; the only contested portion involved implied easement by necessity.
- Arbitrator found Jeep Trails Easement did not extend to Lot 2 or Morgan Station Road and that Lot 2 was landlocked; amendment added by the arbitrator stated Sharp does not need an easement by necessity.
- Court of Special Appeals vacated the award, reversed arbitral findings, and ordered location of an easement by necessity on the Downeys’ land; Maryland Court of Appeals grants certiorari to review the grounds for vacatur and the propriety of the reversal.
- Court held that § 3-224 grounds do not include completely irrational or manifest disregard of the law, remanding for further proceedings under § 3-225(a) to address a potentially contradictory award
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3-224 grounds are exclusive for vacating an arbitration award | Downeys; § 3-224(b) lists grounds | Sharp; argues additional grounds available | Yes; grounds are exclusive as to vacating under § 3-224(b) |
| Whether the award was contradictory and required rehearing under § 3-225(a) | Downeys; award inconsistent and ambiguous | Sharp; seeks vacatur and remand for relief | Remanded to permit rehearing under § 3-225(a) to resolve contradictions |
| Whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in vacating and remapping an easement by necessity | Downeys; easement by necessity should be denied | Sharp; sought implied easement by necessity | Court of Special Appeals erred; decision vacated and remanded for proper analysis under § 3-225(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education v. Prince George’s Co. Educators’ Ass’n, 309 Md. 85 (Md. 1987) (statutory grounds; common-law standards for palpable mistakes)
- O-S Corp. v. Kroll, 29 Md.App. 406 (Md. Ct. App. 1975) (completely irrational standard discussed prior to Adoption of MD Act standards)
- Messersmith, Inc. v. Barclay Townhouse, 313 Md. 652 (Md. 1988) (distinction between 'completely irrational' vs. statutory grounds)
- American Baptists v. Trustees, 335 Md. 564 (Md. 1994) (common-law standards for vacatur; palpable mistakes)
- Baltimore County v. City of Baltimore, 329 Md. 692 (Md. 1993) (vacatur standards; deference to arbitrator findings)
- Shpak v. Oletsky, 280 Md. 355 (Md. 1977) (landlocking and access considerations; limits on easement by necessity)