Roehl

Roehl v. Ritchie

Bad Law
147 Cal. App. 4th 338·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 125·2007 Daily Journal DAR 1480·54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 2007G036999California6,385 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

An arbitrator cannot amend an award after the trial court has confirmed it. We articulated that “reasonable, bright-line test” in Delaney v. Dahl (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 647, 659 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 ] (Delaney), and will not redraw it here.

The judgment below passes the Delaney test.

Here, an arbitrator in a trust dispute issued a first award that effectively decided the most important dispute between the parties, involving whether a corporate note was separate or community property. While the arbitrator referred to the distribution values in a trial exhibit (exhibit 20), he did not make the exhibit a part of the award. Instead, he expressly left open his options to work with the trustee to make a different distribution if “in light of new developments” a “somewhat different distribution of assets would benefit the estate.”

Appellant never sought to modify or amend the first award. To the contrary, it was appellant who sought to confirm it in its original form, and to secure an affirmance on appeal. In this specific factual context, the arbitrator was free to conduct an incremental or multistep process as part of his choice of a remedy, and to issue a second award.

By…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.