Automated Summary
Key Facts
AURC III LLC (the Lender) filed a complaint against Point Ruston (a group of Washington LLCs) alleging breach of a loan agreement, which resulted in an arbitration award for $10,969,015.00 in interest plus $530,974.57 in attorney fees and costs. AURC moved for confirmation of the arbitration award, while Point Ruston argued the case was moot after paying the award amount before the superior court entered its written confirmation order. The superior court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment against Point Ruston, which Point Ruston appealed, arguing the case should have been dismissed as moot.
Issues
- Point Ruston argued superior court erred by attaching arbitration awards with reasoning, but court held this was proper confirmation of the awards
- Point Ruston argued the case was moot after paying the arbitration award, but court held statutory duty to confirm award and case was not moot
- AURC was granted attorney fees and costs on appeal against Point Ruston Phase II, LLC pursuant to the loan agreement
Holdings
The court affirmed the superior court's order confirming the arbitration award, holding that the superior court did not err in entering judgment against Point Ruston instead of dismissing the case with prejudice. The court determined that the case was not moot because AURC was statutorily entitled to a written confirmation order, which could still be provided even after Point Ruston initiated payment of the arbitration award. The court also held that the superior court did not err by attaching the arbitrator's interim and final arbitration awards to the confirmation order. Additionally, the court granted AURC's request for attorney fees and costs on appeal against Point Ruston Phase II, LLC, based on the loan agreement.
Remedies
- The court confirmed the arbitration award that included $10,969,015 in current interest and default interest, $530,974.57 in attorney fees and costs, and $74,246.90 in arbitration fees and expenses.
- The court granted AURC's request for attorney fees and costs on appeal against Point Ruston Phase II, LLC, pursuant to the loan agreement.
- The superior court entered judgment against Point Ruston listing the amounts from the arbitration awards, stating it was 'the final determination of the rights of the parties in this action.'
Monetary Damages
11574236.47
Legal Principles
The court held that RCW 7.04A.220 mandates confirmation of arbitration awards when a motion is filed, and the plain language of the statute must be followed over policy considerations. The court declined to follow Brooks Trust as it prioritized statutory interpretation over policy.
Precedent Name
- In re Pers. Restraint of Arnold
- Gunn v. Riely
- Kenneth W. Brooks Trust v. Pac. Media LLC
- Protect the Peninsula's Future v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd.
- Goldmark v. McKenna
- Westmark Properties, Inc. v. McGuire
- Jametsky v. Olsen
- Gronquist v. Dep't of Corr.
Cited Statute
- Washington Revised Code Chapter 7.04A: Arbitration
- Washington Court of Appeals Rules
Judge Name
- Cruser, A.C.J.
- Lee, J.
- Jore, Price, J.
Passage Text
- Point Ruston contends that the superior court erred by confirming the reasons for the arbitration awards by attaching the awards to the confirmation order, arguing that, under Westmark Properties, Inc. v. McGuire, 53 Wn. App. 400, 766 P.2d 1146 (1989), courts cannot confirm an arbitrator's reasons supporting an award. In Westmark, the parties agreed to go to arbitration after the case was filed, but before trial. 53 Wn. App. at 401. One of the parties sought to vacate the arbitration award, which included 'random observations about the case in general and about some of the evidence,' but the superior court denied the motion to vacate and entered an order and judgment confirming the award. Id. at 401, 403. On appeal, the appellant challenged the arbitrator's random observations as findings of fact. Id. at 403. The appellate court declined to review the observations as factual findings, stating 'an award consists of a statement of the outcome, much as a judgment states the outcome. A statement of reasons for the award is not part of the award.' Id. at 403. Contrary to Point Ruston's argument, Westmark does not preclude a superior court from attaching an arbitration award that includes an arbitrator's reasoning to an order confirming the arbitration award.
- See RCW 7.04A.220. The superior court below made an oral ruling confirming the arbitration award but had not yet entered the written order. Before the superior court could enter its written order on the Monday following its Friday oral ruling, Point Ruston initiated payment of the amount of the arbitration award over the weekend. However, payment of the arbitration award did not deprive AURC of relief in the form of a written confirmation order, to which AURC is statutorily entitled. Thus, effective relief could still be provided. This issue was not moot.
- Here, following arbitration, AURC moved for an order confirming the arbitration award. None of the exceptions in the statute (modification, correction, or vacation) apply in this case. See RCW 7.04A.220. And there is no indication that the legislature intended for the "shall" in RCW 7.04A.220 to create anything other than a mandatory duty. Therefore, AURC's motion for an order confirming the award triggered the superior court's mandatory duty to issue an order confirming the arbitration award. See RCW 7.04A.220; Goldmark, 172 Wn.2d at 575.