Helton v. Joseph D. Calhoun, LTD
2017 Ark. App. 418
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Helton hired Calhoun to represent him in an infringement suit; their fee agreement required disputes to be resolved by ADR, Inc. arbitration or a court proceeding administered in Little Rock, and allowed enforcement of an arbitration award in any court with jurisdiction.
- After litigation, Helton refused to pay; Calhoun filed for arbitration with ADR, Inc. in Little Rock alleging over $30,000 in fees.
- Helton responded to the arbitration complaint by fax, participated in a pre-hearing call but declined to attend the April 1, 2014 hearing; the arbitrator entered an award for Calhoun on October 3, 2014.
- Calhoun filed a petition to register/confirm the arbitration award in Faulkner County on January 5, 2015; the clerk sent Helton certified notice (with an initial clerical error corrected by a follow-up notice) and set a hearing; Helton did not appear.
- The circuit court confirmed the award on March 3, 2015; Helton later moved to dismiss and set aside the confirmation, raising four challenges. The court denied the motion and ordered supplemental discovery; Helton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Helton) | Defendant's Argument (Calhoun) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Service/summons for petition to confirm | AAA §205(b) requires Rule 4 summons; Helton did not receive a proper summons | Confirmation is a summary continuation of arbitration, §205 does not mandate a Rule 4 summons here | Court: §205 does not require a Rule 4 summons; no reversible due-process violation shown |
| 2) Procedural due process | Absence of Rule 4 summons violates due process | No authority showing Rule 4 summons applies to confirmation proceedings; confirmation is not ordinary lawsuit | Court: Argument undeveloped and unsupported; rejected |
| 3) Existence/enforceability of arbitration agreement | Arbitration clause ambiguous; Calhoun should have moved to compel under §207 | Helton participated in arbitration and did not refuse to arbitrate, so §207 motion to compel was unnecessary | Court: Because Helton did not refuse arbitration, §207 compulsion procedure did not apply; agreement enforced |
| 4) Venue (Faulkner County improper) | Agreement required court proceedings administered in Little Rock (Pulaski County) | Agreement permits enforcement of award in any court having jurisdiction; confirmation (enforcement) may be filed elsewhere | Court: Agreement did not bar filing confirmation in Faulkner County; venue proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Potlatch Corp., 326 Ark. 244 (Argues strict Rule 4 compliance relates to due-process challenges to service)
- Keahey v. Plumlee, 94 Ark. App. 121 (Describes confirmation of an arbitration award as continuation of arbitration and a summary proceeding)
- Ressler v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 208 (Appellate standard: will not reverse on undeveloped/unsupported arguments)