Atlanta Gas Light v. Trinity Christian

7 Citing cases

  1. Sweatt v. International Development Corp.

    242 Ga. App. 753 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    In Sweatt, this Court paraphrased the holding in our earlier opinion in Atlanta Gas Light Co., and made the following much more general statement: "An arbitration award should be consistent with terms of the underlying agreement and reflect the ‘essence’ of that contract.... Although an arbitrator has some latitude in fashioning remedies, he is not free to ignore the express terms of a valid and enforceable contract."

    The Sweatts contend the arbitrator overstepped his authority by awarding damages not allowed by the contract. Compare Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian c. Church, 231 Ga. App. 617, 620 (1) ( 500 S.E.2d 374) (1998). They claim that an award to IDC and Bruns of actual damages violated the express terms of the contract which permitted only the recovery of liquidated damages.

  2. Magnum Contracting, LLC v. Century Cmtys. of Ga.

    362 Ga. App. 755 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    The panel did not ignore the terms of the subcontractor agreement or refuse to consider Century's claim for breach of duty to defend. See Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church , 231 Ga. App. 617, 619 (2), 500 S.E.2d 374 (1998) (noting that the arbitrator had "inherent power to fashion a remedy as long as the award draws its essence from the contract or statute") (citation omitted). To the contrary, the panel considered the article of the contract that imposed the duty to defend, heard arguments from both sides, and concluded the provision was enforceable "to the extent damages are attributable to Magnum's negligence."

  3. Wells v. Wells-Wilson. Magwell, LLC

    360 Ga. App. 646 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that "[w]hile our research has revealed no Georgia decision applying the functus officio doctrine in the arbitration context, federal courts have done so."

    MARTA v. Local 732, Amalgamated Transit Union , 261 Ga. 191, 195 (2) (a), 403 S.E.2d 51 (1991). See also Greene v. Hundley , 266 Ga. 592, 595 (2), 468 S.E.2d 350 (1996) ; Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church , 231 Ga. App. 617, 619-620 (2), 500 S.E.2d 374 (1998) (stating, "[a]s the awards are consistent with the terms of the Agreement and thus reflect the ‘essence’ of the contract, they do not demonstrate an imperfect execution of the umpire's authority"). Additionally, the Georgia Arbitration "Code specifically states that merely because the relief granted in the arbitration award ‘could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm an award.’ "

  4. King v. King

    354 Ga. App. 19 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that because arbitrator in divorce case failed to issue an award with findings of fact and conclusions of law, as explicitly required by the parties' contract, trial court was authorized to conclude that there was such an imperfect execution of the arbitrator's authority, such that a final and definite award was not made, and to vacate award on that ground

    In arguing that the omission of findings of fact and conclusions of law from the arbitration award did not supply a ground for vacatur, the wife points to several cases enunciating the general rule that an arbitrator is not required to make findings of fact or explain his or her reasoning for the arbitration award. See Greene v. Hundley , 266 Ga. 592, 595 (2), 468 S.E.2d 350 (1996) ; Payton v. Jackson , 326 Ga. App. 319, 321, 756 S.E.2d 555 (2014) ; Azordegan v. Ebrahimi , 311 Ga. App. 509, 510 (2), 716 S.E.2d 528 (2011) ; Doman v. Stapleton , 272 Ga. App. 114, 117, 611 S.E.2d 673 (2005) ; Marchelletta v. Seay Constr. Svcs. , 265 Ga. App. 23, 28 (2), 593 S.E.2d 64 (2004) ; Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church , 231 Ga. App. 617, 620 (2), 500 S.E.2d 374 (1998) ; Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nunnally Lumber Co. , 176 Ga. App. 232, 234-235 (2), 335 S.E.2d 708 (1985). But the cases cited by the wife are distinguishable because none of them involved the situation where, as in the current case, the parties chose to include an express provision in their arbitration agreement requiring the arbitrator to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

  5. Doman v. Stapleton

    272 Ga. App. 114 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    Refusing to vacate an arbitration award despite the arbitrator’s denial of party’s request for a stenographic record when such request was untimely made pursuant to the [arbitration] rules to which the party previously agreed to follow

    To the extent that Doman charges Stapleton with fraud in procuring the award by submitting a false affidavit in support of this aspect of his attorney fee claim, the record (which contains no transcript of the arbitration hearing) does not demand a finding that the affidavit was false. See Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 231 Ga.App. 617, 620 (2) ( 500 SE2d 374) (1998); compare Sweatt v. Intl. Dev. Corp., 242 Ga. App. 753, 755 (1) ( 531 SE2d 192) (2000) (arbitrator overstepped his authority by awarding actual damages where only liquidated damages were permitted under express terms of contract). 5. Doman charges the trial court with error in granting Stapleton's motion to quash his subpoena to procure the deposition of the arbitrator.

  6. In re Protos

    Case No. 02-74770-MHM, Adversary Proceeding No. 03-6473 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sep. 10, 2004)

    Georgia law provides that arbitrators cannot be required to testify as to their rationale or the reasoning behind their awards. Hood v. Garland, 476 S.E.2d 827 (Ga.App. 1996); Green v. Hundley, 468 S.E.2d 350 (Ga.App. 1996); Atlantic Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 500 S.E.2d 374 (Ga.App. 1998). Federal law is consistent with Georgia law. E.G. Gramling v. Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation, 151 F.Supp. 853 (D.S.C. 1957).

  7. Brown v. Lanier Worldwide

    124 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. App. 2004)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that a misnomer does not render a judgment void "provided the intention to sue the correct defendant is evident from the pleadings and process, such that the defendant could not have been misled"

    Arbitrators are not required to state the reason for their award or to make any findings of fact. United Steel Workers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 598 (1960); Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 500 S.E.2d 374, 377 (Ga.Ct.App. 1998). Also, the record does not indicate that Brown L.L.P. requested the Georgia court make any findings.