Opinion
No. 05-07-00966-CV
Opinion Filed August 30, 2007.
Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 06-01248-C.
Before Justices MORRIS, RICHTER, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, relator, Statewide Remodeling, Inc., seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Honorable Sally L. Montgomery of the County Court at Law No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas, to rule on its second amended motion to enforce arbitration ruling. Relator contends the trial judge has abused her discretion in failing to confirm an arbitrator's award. The facts of this original proceeding are known to the parties so we do not recite them here in detail. Further, because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion and order pursuant to rules 47.4 and 52.8(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P.47.4; 52.8(d).
In this case, pending before the trial judge is relator's May 2, 2007 second amended motion to enforce arbitration ruling which seeks confirmation of the arbitrator's award. The original arbitrator's decision was signed on September 5, 2006. On September 28, 2006, the arbitrator signed a "Clarification of Arbitration Award." Thereafter, pursuant to an agreed order dated November 30, 2006, the arbitrator clarified his award in the "Arbitrator's Clarified Decision and Order" on December 14, 2006. In his clarified decision and order, the arbitrator ordered real parties in interest Joseph R. and Rhonda R. Odom to pay the relator $14,383.50. Relator filed an amended motion to enforce arbitration ruling. Instead of ruling on relator's amended motion to enforce, the trial judge ordered the arbitrator to inspect the property and prepare a report for her. The report was presented to the trial judge on April 26, 2007. On May 2, 2007, relator filed a second amended motion to enforce arbitration ruling. Again, instead of ruling on the pending motion to enforce arbitration ruling, the trial judge ordered another inspection of the property. Relator then sought a petition for mandamus to compel the trial judge to confirm the arbitration award. The real parties have not filed a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitrator's award.
The civil practices and remedies code states: "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." Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 171.087 (Vernon 2005). Absent specific common-law or statutory grounds for vacating, modifying, or correcting an award, the reviewing court must confirm an arbitration award. Gumble v. Grand Homes 2000, L.P., No. 05-06-00639, 2007 WL 1866883, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas, June 29, 2007, no pet.). Mandamus relief is available when, under the circumstances of the case, the facts and the law permit the trial court to make but one decision, which the court has refused to do, and for which there is no remedy by appeal. Proffer v. Yates, 734 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex. 1987); Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985).
In this case, the only motion pending before the trial judge is the one seeking enforcement of the arbitrator's award. We conclude the trial judge has abused her discretion by not confirming the arbitration award signed on September 5, 2006 and subsequently clarified on December 14, 2006 in the "Arbitrator's Clarified Decision and Order," pursuant to the trial judge's agreed order dated November 30, 2006. The trial judge has failed to rule on the pending motion to enforce arbitration ruling, and, therefore there is no appealable order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 171.098 (Vernon 2005). Relator is without an adequate appellate remedy. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the relator's petition for writ of mandamus. A writ will issue only in the event trial judge fails to confirm the arbitrator's award.