Opinion
No. CV 05-4001945
August 25, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
These actions are to confirm and vacate an arbitration award entered in favor of the claimant, MBNA America Bank, N.A., and against the respondent, Joseph Leslie, for a total amount of $18,465.39. Leslie objects to the action to confirm the award and moves that it be vacated claiming that he never agreed to arbitrate and that the arbitrator did not give him notice of the award, among numerous other claims. MBNA claims that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Leslie's application to vacate because Leslie failed to file said application to vacate within the time required by statute.
From the material presented to the court, the following facts appear. Leslie entered into a credit card agreement with MBNA in 1999. Leslie made charges and credits on the account until March 2004 when he defaulted on his payments. MBNA subsequently initiated arbitration proceedings. Leslie participated in the arbitration proceedings by filing an answer, defenses, as well as a motion to dismiss and various discovery type motions. On November 24, 2004 the arbitrator issued his award and copies were sent to MBNA and Leslie. On March 11, 2005 MBNA filed an application to confirm the arbitration award in the Superior Court and service was made on Leslie of the application on March 18, 2005. On April 15, 2005 Leslie filed an application to vacate the arbitration award with the Superior Court and a copy of the application was mailed that date by Leslie to MBNA.
General Statutes § 52-417 provides: "At any time within one year after an award has been rendered and the parties to the arbitration notified thereof, any party to the arbitration may make application to the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated or, when the court is not in session, to any judge thereof, for an order confirming the award. The court or judge CT Page 11738-hw shall grant such an order confirming the award unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in sections 52-418 and 52-419." General Statutes § 52-420(b) provides: "No motion to vacate, modify or correct an award may be made after thirty days from the notice of the award to the party to the arbitration who makes the motion."
"General Statutes § 52-417 provides, inter alia, that, within one year after an arbitration award has been rendered, any party to the arbitration may apply for an order confirming the award, and that the court shall grant the order unless the award is vacated on any ground enumerated in General Statutes § 52-418. Thus, § 52-417 limits a court's authority to vacate an arbitration award unless an application to vacate that award has been made in accordance with § 52-418. See, e.g., Von Langendorff v. Riordan, 147 Conn. 524, 528-29, 163 A.2d 100 (1960); Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1588 v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 33 Conn.App. 1, 4, 632 A.2d 713 (1993). `Section 52-420(b) requires that a motion to vacate an arbitration award be filed within thirty days of the notice of the award to the moving party. If the motion is not filed within the thirty day time limit, the trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the motion. Vail v. American Way Homes, Inc., 181 Conn. 449, 452-53, 435 A.2d 993 (1980).' Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Castellano, 225 Conn. 339, 344, 623 A.2d 55 (1993); see General Statutes § 52-420(b)." (Footnotes omitted.) Wu v. Chang, 264 Conn. 307, 311-12 (2003).
Leslie's application to vacate is alleged to be brought pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-418 and 42-420 (sic). "Under § 52-420(b), however, a party seeking an order to vacate an arbitration award on grounds of corruption, fraud or undue means — or on any other ground set forth in § 52-418 — must do so within the thirty day limitation period set forth in § 52-420(b). In other words, once the thirty day limitation period of § 52-420(b) has passed, `the award may not thereafter be attacked on any of the grounds in . . . § 52-418'; Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1588 v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., supra, 33 Conn.App. 4; including fraud. To conclude otherwise would be contrary not only to the clear intent of the legislature as expressed in §§ 52-417, 52-418 and 52-420(b), but also to a primary goal of arbitration, namely, the efficient, economical and expeditious resolution of private disputes. See, e.g., Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Ins. Co., 258 Conn. 101, 110, 779 A.2d 737 (2001); Rocky Hill Teacher's Ass'n. v. Board of Education, 72 Conn.App. 274, 279, 804 A.2d 999, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 907, 810 A.2d 272 (2002). [The Plaintiffs] filed a timely application to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to § 52-417. Although [the Defendant] had the right under § 52-418 to seek to have the award vacated on the basis of fraud, he failed to do so within the CT Page 11738-hx thirty-day limitation period prescribed by § 52-420(b). Thus, the trial court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over [the Defendant's] motion to vacate the award and properly granted the motion of [the Plaintiffs] to confirm the award." Wu v. Chang, 264 Conn. 307, 313-14 (2003).
Leslie claims he never received notice of the award from the arbitrator and that he was not aware of it until he received it from Plaintiff's counsel on March 16, 2005. This claim is not credible based on the voluminous documents filed by both Leslie and MBNA in this matter.
Leslie filed an answer, request for production of documents, request for admissions, demand for bill of particulars and interrogatories to claimant dated September 25, 2004 with the National Arbitration Forum and listed his address as 9 Cherrywood Drive, Ellington, CT. He had been sent a copy of the notice of the claim for arbitration to that same address. Another answer was filed dated October 17, 2004. Leslie was notified by letter dated October 28, 2004 from the National Arbitration Forum that a document hearing would be held within 30 days and any additional material should be submitted within 10 days. He then filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Lack of Standing, Request for Discovery Order and Request for Acceptance of Counter Claim dated November 14, 2004. In the latter document he notes that he received certain correspondence from a coordinator for the National Arbitration Forum. The Ellington address is also the same address on his statements from MBNA from August 2001 to July 2004. On the award it is certified that it was sent on November 24, 2004 to Leslie at this same address. Thus Leslie's motion to vacate is untimely and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Although a party who contests the arbitrability of a dispute may submit to arbitration and still raise the issue of arbitrability on a motion to vacate, he must do so in a timely manner. See, White v. Kampner, 229 Conn. 468 (1994); Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Castellano, 225 Conn. 339 (1993).
Thus MBNA's application to confirm the arbitration award in Docket No. CV 05-4001945 is granted and Leslie's application to vacate the arbitration award in Docket No. CV 05-4002213 is dismissed.
Jane S. Scholl, J. CT Page 11738-hy