McKeown v. McKeown, 505 P.3d 455

McKeown Family Limited Partnership formed in 1994; siblings Scott, Laurie, and Rosalyn were general partners; Scott managed partnership assets.
In 2016 Scott sued Laurie and others claiming Laurie failed partner duties and sought dissolution or declaration that Laurie was no longer a general partner; court ordered arbitration under a broad arbitration clause in the partnership agreement.
In arbitration Laurie moved for summary determination; parties had an ASP Rule 16 telephone conference and agreed summary disposition was appropriate.
Scott filed a cross-motion for summary determination; no second prehearing telephone conference was held; the sisters opposed but did not submit factual evidence controverting Scott’s declarations or object to the absence of a conference.
The arbitrator denied dissolution but found Laurie’s long-term nonparticipation amounted to waiver/abandonment and declared she was no longer a general partner; the sisters sought reconsideration and later moved in circuit court to vacate the award.
The circuit court denied vacatur, concluding the arbitrator had authority under the broad arbitration clause and that any alleged procedural error (no second teleconference) did not show the arbitrator exceeded her powers; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Laurie)	Defendant's Argument (Scott)	Held
Whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under ORS 36.705(1)(d) by granting Scott’s cross-motion and resolving fact-based issues	The arbitrator lacked authority to decide fact issues without the parties’ prior agreement and thus exceeded powers by deciding facts on Scott’s cross-motion	The arbitration clause was broad and the parties’ submissions (including agreement on summary disposition) authorized the arbitrator to decide the claims, including on the cross-motion	Court held arbitrator had authority; award affirmed
Whether failure to hold a second prehearing telephone conference under ASP Rule 16 made the award subject to vacatur as an excess of arbitrator’s powers	The absence of the required teleconference meant Laurie was surprised and deprived of opportunity to present contrary facts, so the arbitrator exceeded authority	The alleged procedural error is not a challenge to the arbitrator’s substantive authority; procedural mistakes do not constitute excess of powers under ORS 36.705(1)(d)	Court held procedural noncompliance (if any) is not reviewable as excess of power; not grounds to vacate

Brewer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 436 P.2d 547 (Or. 1968) (arbitrator’s legal or factual mistakes do not vitiate award; review limited to arbitrator’s authority)
Couch Investments, LLC v. Peverieri, 371 P.3d 1202 (Or. 2016) (scope of arbitrator’s powers defined by parties’ agreement to arbitrate)
Nieto v. City of Talent, 436 P.3d 82 (Or. App. 2019) (grounds to vacate an arbitration award are narrowly confined to the arbitrator’s authority)
Portland Firefighters’ Assn. v. City of Portland, 341 P.3d 770 (Or. App. 2014) (courts will not second-guess arbitrator’s merits determinations)
3000 Investment Corp. v. Teed, 494 P.3d 378 (Or. App. 2021) (following Brewer’s limited-review approach to arbitration awards)