law-arbitration-lease-eviction | suit to confirm arbitration award under the TAA | petition for confirmation
of arbitration award under the FAA | Texas Arbitration Case Law |
ARBITRATION IN LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTES | LEASE DISPUTES
08-0304
ASPRI INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. v. AHMED AFEEF, MARYAM BEGUM AFEEF AND ENM FOOD MART,
INC.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00249-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-20-08)(judgment confirming
an arbitration award) (standard of review on appeal)(lease / eviction dispute)
This is an appeal from a trial court's judgment confirming an arbitration award. In a single issue
appellant Aspri Investments, L.L.C. ("Aspri") contends the trial court erred in awarding possession of
certain real property to Ahmed Afeef, Maryam Begum Afeef, and ENM Food Mart, Inc. ("Afeef"). We
affirm.
Trial courts have authority to render judgment on arbitration awards. Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 171.081, 171.092 (Vernon 2005). "Unless grounds
are offered for vacating, modifying, or correcting an award under Section 171.088
or 171.091, the court, on application of a party, shall confirm the award." Id. §
171.087. Aspri claims Afeef made no demand for possession in the arbitration proceeding.
Accordingly, possession was not an issue before the arbitrator and he was barred from making any
such award. Aspri also contends the arbitrator did not expressly award possession to Afeef, did not
mention 6644 Tezel Road (the leased premises) in his award, and did not award affirmative relief to
either party. Finally, Aspri contends that the last sentence of the award, which states that "all damages,
claims or other relief requested by claimant or respondents, which are not expressly granted or
awarded herein, are hereby expressly denied," proves the arbitrator expressly denied any claim by
Afeef to possession of the leased premises. Based on the foregoing, Aspri argues the trial court
exceeded its authority because it did more than confirm the award, it awarded possession of the leased
premises when no such award was made by the arbitrator. We review a trial court's confirmation of an
arbitration award de novo. GJR Mgmt. Holdings, L.P. v. Jack Raus, Ltd., 126 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex.
App.-San Antonio 2003, pet. denied). The trial court, on the other hand, must review an arbitrator's
award with great deference. See Crossmark, Inc. v. Hazar, 124 S.W.3d 422, 429 (Tex. App.-Dallas
2004, pet. denied). The thrust of Aspri's complaint is that the trial court misinterpreted the arbitrator's
award, awarding relief to Afeef that was beyond that awarded by the arbitrator. We disagree.
Aspri's written demand for arbitration to the AAA described the "nature of the dispute" as "forcible
detainer/landlord possession of the premises." (emphasis added) At the hearing on confirmation,
Aspri's counsel stated, "All that was asked for is possession and termination of the lease." Clearly,
Aspri's claim for possession of the leased premises was an issue before the arbitrator. See Gulf Oil
Corp. v. Guidry, 160 Tex. 139, 327 S.W.2d 406, 408 (1959) (holding that "authority of arbitrators . . . is
limited to decision of the matters submitted . . either expressly or by necessary implication."). In the
award, the arbitrator specifically determined Aspri's eviction of Afeef by TRO was wrongful. In other
words, the arbitrator found Aspri should have never obtained possession of the property and but for
the wrongful TRO, Afeef would have never been dispossessed. Impliedly, by finding the eviction by
TRO wrongful, the arbitrator determined possession should remain as it was before the wrongful TRO
and awarded possession of the leased premises to Afeef. See Barsness v. Scott, 126 S.W.3d 232, 239
(Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, pet. denied) (recognizing viability of implicit determinations by
arbitrators). Any other interpretation would mean the arbitrator made absolutely no award. This would
conflict with the arbitrator's concluding statement that "[a]ll damages, claims, or other relief requested
by [Aspri] or [Afeef] which are not expressly granted or awarded herein are hereby expressly denied,"
which implies some actual relief was awarded. By finding Aspri wrongfully evicted Afeef through the
TRO, the arbitrator necessarily awarded possession of the leased premises to Afeef. Accordingly, the
trial court's judgment awarding possession is in conformance with the arbitrator's award. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 171.087 (Vernon 2005).
Conclusion: We overrule Aspri's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.