Opinion
No. 05-05-01234-CV
Opinion issued February 16, 2007.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. cc-05-03493-E.
Before Justices BRIDGES, FITZGERALD, and LANG. Opinion by Justice BRIDGES.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John H. Garner appeals the trial court's summary judgment in favor of MBNA America Bank, N.A. on MBNA's motion to enforce an arbitration award against Garner. Although Garner's pro se brief does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and does not contain a concise statement of the issues presented for our review, Garner appears to argue that he had no agreement with MBNA to submit disputes to arbitration, he received no notice of any change to the terms of his original agreement with MBNA, MBNA did not have the right to unilaterally change its agreement with Garner, enforcement of the underlying arbitration award would violate Garner's Due Process rights, Garner has been deprived of his right to a trial by jury, and Garner has not failed to timely dispute the arbitration award. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In 2000, Garner entered into an agreement with MBNA whereby MBNA agreed to open a line of credit for Garner. In 2004, MBNA submitted its claim for $12,850.89 against Garner to arbitration. Garner filed a response and served it on MBNA. After reviewing all of the evidence submitted, the arbitrator entered an award of $12,850.89 in favor of MBNA. MBNA served Garner with a copy of the arbitration award on July 27, 2004. Garner took no action to vacate the award or otherwise challenge the validity of the arbitration award. On March 23, 2005, MBNA filed its original petition seeking to have the trial court confirm the arbitration award. Garner opposed the confirmation of the arbitration award on the grounds that he had no knowledge of the specific items on the account sued on, his account had been paid in full, MBNA had failed to "resolve certain matters in dispute" prior to bringing an action for confirmation, and MBNA breached its contract with Garner. Garner also raised a claim for injunctive relief and counterclaims for statutory violations and damages, breach of contract, and violations of his due process rights. MBNA subsequently filed an amended petition and a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Garner's attempts to vacate the arbitration were time-barred. The trial court granted MBNA's motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed.
We first address Garner's argument that he has not failed to timely dispute the arbitration award. In reviewing the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment, we apply well-known standards. See Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). Under the civil practice and remedies code, a party must make an application to vacate an arbitration award not later than the 90th day after the date of delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 171.088(b) (Vernon 2005). Here, Garner admitted in his original answer that MBNA served him with a copy of the arbitration award on July 27, 2004. However, Garner took no action to vacate the award or otherwise challenge the validity of the arbitration award until he filed his answer on April 22, 2005 in response to MBNA's original petition to confirm the award. Thus, Garner failed to make an application to vacate the award within 90 days of receiving a copy of the award, and his subsequent attempts to vacate the award were time barred. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 171.088(b) (Vernon 2005). Accordingly, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of MBNA on this basis. See Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. Having disposed of this issue against Garner, we need not address the other issues raised in his brief.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.