Philvester Williams v. America's Home Place, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CA-01107-COA
PHILVESTER WILLIAMS AND JOYCE
WILLIAMS
APPELLANTS
v.
AMERICA’S HOME PLACE, INC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
06/05/2009
HON. WILLIAM F. COLEMAN
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
SANFORD E. KNOTT
JAMES D. BELL
CIVIL - CONTRACT
VACATION OF AN ARBITRATION
AWARD BY THE HINDS COUNTY
COUNTY COURT IN FAVOR OF
HOMEOWNERS/PLAINTIFFS REVERSED
AND RENDERED TO CONFIRM
ARBITRATOR’S AWARD
AFFIRMED - 03/15/2011
EN BANC.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
On November 7, 2007, Philvester and Joyce Williams received an arbitration award
of $12,500 against America’s Home Place, Inc. (AHP), which had been hired to construct
the Williamses’ residence in 2002. The Williamses claimed the award was the result of the
arbitrator’s “evident partiality” against them. Subsequently, the County Court of Hinds
County granted the Williamses’ motion to vacate the award on January 17, 2008. On appeal
to the Hinds County Circuit Court, First Judicial District, the circuit court reversed the county
court’s judgment and entered a judgment confirming the arbitrator’s award. Aggrieved, the
Williamses appeal. Finding no error, we affirm the circuit court’s reversal of the county
court’s judgment and confirmation of the award.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
In 2002, the Williamses entered into a contractual agreement with AHP to construct
the Williamses’ residence.
After construction of the home was near completion, the
Williamses claimed that AHP had failed to build the home properly. In June 2005, the
Williamses filed suit against AHP in county court alleging approximately $125,000 in
damage to the house.
The suit was subsequently dismissed with prejudice due to
enforcement of a binding arbitration agreement contained in the parties’ contract.
¶3.
Subsequently, the county court entered orders in September 2005 and May 2006,
requiring the parties to submit to arbitration. A hearing was conducted in the Williamses’
home before an arbitrator in May 2007, wherein the Williamses requested damages stemming
from the following: the cost of repair and replacement of items per the home inspection
report, the cost of replacement of the wastewater-treatment system, and damages caused by
a lack of soil treatment. Conversely, AHP asserted that many of the Williamses’ claims dealt
with the quality of materials provided, all of which were subject to the construction
agreement, which both parties read and signed. AHP further alleged that the issues relating
to the wastewater-treatment system were due to lack of proper maintenance and that all of
the Williamses’ repair estimates were excessive. AHP claimed that it was responsible for
approximately $6,000 in repair damages.
2
¶4.
After reviewing the evidence, the arbitrator concluded that: the quality of the windows
installed and soil treatment were consistent with the construction agreement; the wastewatertreatment system was inadequate as installed; and an award of $12,500 was adequate to cover
the cost of repairs. Shortly after receiving the arbitrator’s analysis and award, the Williamses
filed a motion in the county court to vacate the award on the basis that the arbitrator was
partial to AHP; therefore, the award was unjust. The county court held a hearing on the
matter, and notwithstanding a lack of evidence or testimony, the county judge issued an order
simply stating that: “the award should be set aside.” The county judge further announced
that the case should be set for trial, despite the case’s prior dismissal with prejudice and
previous orders requiring arbitration.
¶5.
AHP then filed in the county court a motion to reconsider, confirm the award or
amend or correct the award, or refer the case back to arbitration. Simultaneously, AHP filed
two petitions for interlocutory appeal with the Mississippi Supreme Court and the circuit
court. The supreme court denied the petition, and the circuit court failed to respond.
Meanwhile, the county court denied AHP’s motion, and AHP subsequently filed an appeal
in the circuit court.
¶6.
On March 30, 2009, the circuit court reversed the county court’s vacation of the award
and entered a judgment confirming the arbitrator’s award. Following the denial of their
motion to reconsider, the Williamses timely filed this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7.
The scope of review in arbitration cases is extremely limited. As stated by the
Mississippi Supreme Court: “The scope of judicial review of an arbitration award is quite
3
narrow, and every reasonable presumption will be indulged in favor of the validity of
arbitration proceedings.” Craig v. Barber, 524 So. 2d 974, 977 (Miss. 1988) (quoting Hutto
v. Jordan, 204 Miss. 30, 41, 36 So. 2d 809, 811 (1948)). Furthermore, this Court will not
“disturb [the findings of a circuit judge sitting without a jury] unless they are manifestly
wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Wilson v. Greyhound
Bus Lines, Inc., 830 So. 2d 1151, 1155 (¶9) (Miss. 2002) (internal quotations omitted).
DISCUSSION
¶8.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-15-133(1) (Rev. 2004) controls the vacation
of arbitration awards. As summarized by the Mississippi Supreme Court:
[T]he only bases in our law for refusal to enforce an arbitration award are: (a)
the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (b) there
was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in
any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of the parties.
Barber, 524 So. 2d at 978 (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 11-15-133(1) (Supp. 1987)).
¶9.
In this case, no evidence or testimony was presented to the county court; therefore,
the allegation of the arbitrator’s “evident partiality” was left unsupported. In order to show
“evident partiality” sufficient to vacate an arbitration award, a reviewing court must find a
personal interest on the part of the arbitrator. Herrin v. Milton M. Stewart, Inc., 558 So. 2d
863, 865 (Miss. 1990). An arbitrator’s personal interest may not be shown by any means
“other than pecuniary interest or some other actual relationship between the parties.” Id.
(citation omitted). Furthermore, the partiality “must be direct, definite and capable of
demonstration rather than remote, uncertain, or speculative.” Id.
¶10.
The county court’s order vacating the arbitrator’s award made no mention of any
4
reasoning behind the decision, nor did it glean support for the theory that the arbitrator was
“evidently partial.” Instead, the county court gave a vague, general statement that the award
should be set aside. On appeal, the circuit court noted that: “[t]he [county court’s] [o]rder
[v]acating the [a]ward makes no findings of fact and states no reason for vacation. . . . [t]his
court finds no evidence of evident partiality on the part of [the] Arbitrator . . . .”
¶11.
As a matter of public policy, Mississippi courts have consistently allowed parties to
arbitrate their differences and have given effect to arbitration awards. Barber, 524 So. 2d at
977 (citing Scottish Union & Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Skaggs, 114 Miss. 618, 626, 75 So. 437, 438
(1917)). Such a policy “has even greater force in our present era of overcrowded judicial
dockets. If there be any type of arbitration award we should be loath to disturb, it should be
that between private contracting parties respecting . . . themselves and their respective pocket
books.” Id. In the case at hand, the circuit court was proper in reversing the county court’s
vacation of the arbitration award and entering an order confirming the arbitrator’s award.
We find the Williamses’ claims to be meritless.
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANTS.
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., MYERS, ROBERTS, CARLTON
AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY
WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
