TIC Seven Bar 12, LLC v. CORE Seven Bar H, LLC, 1:17-cv-00450

TIC Seven Bar 12, LLC (TIC 12) and CORE entities were parties to a tenants-in-common (TIC) agreement governing a 1.85% interest in an Albuquerque apartment property; TIC 12’s sole member is an Oklahoma LLC (diversity exists).
The Hartmanns originally owned TIC 12 and entered a PSA with Volt, which sought to acquire their membership interest; CORE disputed the transfer and treated TIC 12 as a "Dissenting TIC."
CORE exercised a contractual buyout at a reduced percentage of original investment, attempted a forced sale to an affiliate (RCII), and placed proceeds in escrow; TIC 12 (and Volt) contested CORE’s actions.
TIC 12 filed an AAA arbitration demand alleging CORE breached the TIC Agreement; the arbitrator issued a Final Award ordering CORE to pay TIC 12 $804,750 and returning the escrowed funds to RCII, but did not state who retains legal title to the 1.85% interest.
CORE made partial post-award payments; TIC 12 moved to confirm the arbitration award and seek attorneys’ fees and costs in federal court under the FAA and applicable New Mexico law and the TIC Agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arbitrator’s award is definite as to ownership of the 1.85% interest	The award awards $804,750 to TIC 12 and thus should be confirmed as final	The award is ambiguous about whether the payment was a purchase of the interest or damages	The court found the award ambiguous and remanded to the arbitrator for clarification on ownership
Whether the court should confirm and enter judgment on the arbitration award now	TIC 12 asked the court to confirm the award and enter judgment	CORE opposed immediate confirmation given the award’s ambiguity	Court deferred ruling on confirmation pending arbitrator clarification
Whether TIC 12 is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under N.M. statute after confirmation	TIC 12 sought fees under N.M.S.A. § 44-7A-26 and the TIC Agreement	CORE opposed; argued no prevailing party and remand precludes fees now	Court denied fees and costs because remand meant no prevailing party yet and statutory basis requires confirmation/modification first
Whether the court should remand the award for clarification rather than interpret it	TIC 12 urged confirmation without remand	CORE argued the award was unclear and required clarification from arbitrator	Court remanded to arbitrator, citing deference and precedent that courts remand ambiguous awards rather than interpret them

U.S. Energy Corp. v. Nukem, Inc., 400 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2005) (remand for clarification appropriate when award admits of more than one reasonable interpretation)
Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 254 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2001) (courts apply extremely deferential review to arbitration awards)
Durkin v. CIGNA Prop. & Cas. Corp., 986 F. Supp. 1356 (D. Kan. 1997) (discussing narrow standard of review and deference to arbitrators)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (FAA requires independent jurisdictional basis for federal-court consideration of arbitration-related matters)