Title: KEITH T. VOGT V. MBNA AMERICA BANK

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

KEITH T. VOGT V. MBNA AMERICA BANK2008 WY 26178 P.3d 405Case Number: S-07-0188Decided: 03/06/2008
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 

KEITH 
T. VOGT,Appellant(Defendant),v.MBNA AMERICA 
BANK,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Pro 
se.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Rocklon 
L. Edmonds, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming.     

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

            

[¶1]      Keith Vogt 
appeals from the district court's order confirming an arbitration award and 
granting a judgment to MBNA America Bank (MBNA).  On the record before us, we find no 
error in the district court's decision.  
Consequently, we affirm.    

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Mr. Vogt does not 
include a separate statement of the issues, as required by W.R.A.P. 7.01.  His brief, however, includes the 
following assertions:

 
 

1.                  
Laramie 
County Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter because of diversity of 
citizenship and statute.

 
 

2.                  
A 
motion for a restraining order filed and served on appellee-plaintiff 
constitutes notice of not consenting to arbitration 
proceedings.

 
 

3.                  
The 
court has not heard objections to appellee-plaintiff's 
motion.

 
 
MBNA 
phrases the issues as:

 
 
 
 

I.                    
Whether 
the district court had jurisdiction to confirm the 
arbitration.

 
 

II.                  
Whether 
the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award pursuant to W.S. 
Sections 1-36-101 et. 
seq.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The record on 
appeal is very limited.  On March 2, 
2007, MBNA filed a petition for confirmation of arbitration award.  The arbitration award was attached to 
the petition and stated in relevant part:

 
 
Case 
Summary

 
 
 
 
1.         The 
Claimant [MBNA] has filed a Claim with the National Arbitration 
Forum.

 
 
2.         
After Proof of Service of the Claim was filed with the Forum, the Forum 
mailed to Respondent a Second Notice of Arbitration.

 
 
3.         
An arbitration hearing notice was duly delivered to the Parties as 
required by the Forum Rules.

 
 
4.         The 
Parties have had the opportunity to present all evidence and information to the 
Arbitrator.

 
 
5.         
The Arbitrator has reviewed all evidence submitted in this 
case.

 
 
Decision

 
 
. . . 

 
 
3.         
The Claim was properly served on the Respondent by Claimant in accordance 
with Rule 6, including a Notice of Arbitration.

 
 
4.         
On or before 12/22/2005 the Parties entered into a written agreement to 
arbitrate their dispute.1

 
 
5.         
No Party has asserted that this Arbitration Agreement is invalid or 
unenforceable.

 
 
6.         
The Parties' Arbitration Agreement is valid and enforceable and governs 
all the issues in dispute.

 
 
7.         This 
matter is arbitrable under the terms of the Parties' Arbitration Agreement and 
the law.

 
 
. . . 

 
 
9.         The 
evidence submitted supports the issuance of this Award.

 
 
10.       The 
applicable substantive law supports the issuance of the 
Award.

 
 
Therefore, 
the Arbitrator ISSUES:

 
 
An Award 
in favor of the Claimant, for a total amount of $3,374.49.

 
 
[¶4]      Mr. Vogt filed a 
motion to dismiss the petition to confirm the arbitration award, apparently 
claiming the district court did not have jurisdiction because MBNA was not 
authorized to transact business in Wyoming as 
it was a Delaware corporation and did not have a 
certificate of authority issued by the Wyoming Secretary of State.  The district court denied Mr. Vogt's 
motion to dismiss.  It concluded 
that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties pursuant to the 
Uniform Arbitration Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-36-101, et. seq. (LexisNexis 2007).  Addressing Mr. Vogt's claim that MBNA 
was not authorized to transact business in Wyoming, it ruled MBNA was a 
"National Bank" that was not required to register with the Wyoming Secretary of 
State because it is registered with the Federal Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency.     

 
 
[¶5]      The district 
court entered an order confirming the arbitration award and granting a judgment 
in favor of MBNA.  The court noted 
that Mr. Vogt had not filed a timely motion to vacate or modify the award under 
the arbitration statute.  Mr. Vogt 
filed a notice of appeal.  He 
apparently did not, however, designate any portions of the record for our 
review.  MBNA designated the limited 
record we have before us.     

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
            
1.         
Jurisdiction 

 
 
[¶6]      In his first 
issue, Mr. Vogt claims the district court did not have jurisdiction over the 
arbitration confirmation proceedings.  
Subject matter jurisdiction is an issue of law that may be raised at any 
time by any party or by the court on its own motion.  Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Campbell County, 
2006 WY 44, ¶ 36, 132 P.3d 801, 813 (Wyo.  2006); Wooster v. Carbon County School Dist. No. 1, 
2005 WY 47, ¶ 33, 109 P.3d 893, 902 (Wyo. 2005).

 
 
[¶7]      Section 1-36-102 
defines judicial jurisdiction over arbitration matters:

 
 
"Court" 
means the district court having jurisdiction of the parties.  An agreement providing for arbitration 
in this state may be enforced by the court in the county where the parties to 
the controversy reside or may be personally served.

 
 
Mr. Vogt 
argues that MBNA is a Delaware corporation that 
does not have a certificate of authority from the Wyoming Secretary of State's 
office and, thus, could not be personally served in LaramieCounty.  The district court concluded that it had 
jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award because MBNA is a "National Bank" 
and, therefore, was not required to register with the Wyoming Secretary of 
State.  

 
 
[¶8]      The record on 
appeal contains no evidence relevant to the jurisdiction issue.  There is no information about whether or 
not MBNA is a Delaware corporation, registered 
in Wyoming 
and/or a "National Bank."  "An 
appellant bears the burden of bringing to the reviewing court a sufficient 
record on which to base its decision."  
Aragon v. Aragon, 2005 WY 5, ¶ 20, 104 P.3d 756, 762 (Wyo. 2005).  Absent a 
sufficient appellate record, we must presume there was a sufficient evidentiary 
basis for the district court's decision.  
See, e.g., Montoya v. Navarette-Montoya, 2005 WY 
161, ¶ 8, 125 P.3d 265, 269 (Wyo. 2005); Burt v. Burt, 2002 WY 127, ¶ 7, 53 P.3d 101, 103 (Wyo. 2002).  

 
 
[¶9]      On the record 
before us, we accept the district court's factual finding that MBNA is a 
"National Bank."  Mr. Vogt offers no 
pertinent legal authority or cogent argument to contest the district court's 
legal conclusion that, because MBNA is a "National Bank," it had jurisdiction to 
confirm the arbitration award.  See Pittard v. Great 
Lakes Aviation, 2007 WY 64, ¶ 47, 156 P.3d 964, 977 (Wyo. 
2007).  We, therefore, summarily 
affirm the district court's ruling that it had jurisdiction to confirm the 
arbitration award.  

 
 
            
2.         
Consent/Agreement to Arbitrate 
Dispute

 
 
[¶10]   In his second argument, Mr. Vogt 
claims that he did not consent to the arbitration proceeding and his non-consent 
is evidenced by a motion he filed in federal court to temporarily enjoin MBNA 
from conducting further collection actions.  He also briefly argues that he was not 
properly notified of the arbitration.  

 
 
[¶11]   Before we address Mr. Vogt's 
specific arguments, it is worthwhile to reiterate our general policies regarding 
arbitration.  "This Court favors 
arbitration or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."  Scherer v. Schuler Custom Homes Const., 
Inc., 2004 WY 109, ¶ 16, 98 P.3d 159, 163 (Wyo. 2004).   See also, Welty v. Brady, 2005 WY 157, ¶ 21, 123 P.3d 920, 926-27 (Wyo. 2005); T & M 
Properties v. ZVFK Architects and Planners, 661 P.2d 1040, 1043 (Wyo. 1983).  Arbitration provides a means for parties 
to "resolve their differences in a less expensive and more timely manner than 
traditional litigation does." Scherer, 
¶ 16, 98 P.3d  at 163.  See also, Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Tilden, 
2003 WY 31, ¶ 7, 64 P.3d 739, 741-42 (Wyo. 2003).  As a general rule, we are reluctant to 
upset the arbitrator's resolution of a controversy.  Pecha v. Smith, Keller & Assocs., 
942 P.2d 387, 390 (Wyo. 1997).  

 
 
[¶12]   With regard to Mr. Vogt's claim 
that he did not consent to, or receive notice of, the arbitration, the 
arbitrator's decision stated that the parties had agreed to arbitrate their 
dispute, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and covered all 
issues in dispute, and the parties had received proper notice of the 
arbitration.  Typically, the 
determination of whether the arbitrator exceeded its authority involves a 
question of law that we review de 
novo.  Welty, ¶ 12, 123 P.3d  at 925.  Nevertheless, we need a sufficient 
record in order to review the issue.  
Mr. Vogt attached to his brief a copy of his federal court motion to 
temporarily enjoin MBNA from conducting further collection actions, which he 
claims establishes his non-consent to the arbitration proceeding.  However, neither the motion nor the 
order ruling on the motion is included in the official appellate record, so we 
have no way of knowing whether the federal court matter had any bearing on the 
arbitration.  The arbitration 
agreement is also not included in the record on appeal.  

 
 
[¶13]   As we stated above, the appellant 
has the responsibility to designate a sufficient record, and "he cannot 
supplement the appellate record by attaching documents to his brief."  CJ v. SA (In re Adoption of ADA), 2006 WY 49, ¶ 
10 n. 1, 132 P.3d 196, 201 n. 1 (Wyo. 
2006).   See also, Barnes v. Barnes, 998 P.2d 942, 945 
(Wyo. 2000).  Thus, Mr. Vogt's 
second argument must be summarily rejected for the same reason we rejected his 
first argument  there is no information in the record for us to review his 
claim of error.  Under these 
circumstances, we presume there was sufficient evidence to support the 
arbitrator's findings that the parties had agreed to arbitrate their dispute and 
Mr. Vogt received proper notice of the arbitration.  Moreover, as we discuss in detail below, 
Mr. Vogt did not properly object to the arbitrator's award to warrant a review 
of this issue.  

 
 
            
3.         
Objections to MBNA's Motion to 
Confirm Arbitration Award

 
 
[¶14]   MBNA filed a petition to confirm 
the arbitration award.  Section 
1-36-113 governs arbitration confirmation proceedings:             

 
 
Upon 
application of a party the court shall confirm the award unless within the time 
limits allowed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying the award.            

 
 
[¶15]   Mr. Vogt contends that the court 
did not hear his objections to MBNA's motion to confirm the arbitration 
award.  A party may raise objections 
to an arbitration award by filing a timely petition to vacate, modify or correct 
the award or a timely answer to a petition to confirm the award.  T 
& M Properties, 661 P.2d  at 1043.  
See also, Simon v. Teton Board of Realtors, 4 P.3d 197, 204 (Wyo. 2000).  Section 1-36-1142 provides the bases for vacating an 
arbitration award, and § 1-36-1153 pertains to modification or 
correction of an award.  An 
application under either provision must be made within 90 days of the date of 
delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant or if the application to vacate 
the award is "predicated upon corruption, fraud or undue means it shall be made 
within ninety (90) days after the grounds are known or should have been 
known."  Sections 1-36-114(b) and 
1-36-115(a).  Absent a timely 
objection, the district court was required to confirm the arbitration 
award.  Section 
1-36-113.

 
 
[¶16]   The record on appeal contains only 
one filing by Mr. Vogt in response to MBNA's motion to confirm the arbitration 
award  the motion to dismiss addressed above.  There is nothing in the record to 
indicate that he filed a motion to vacate, modify or correct the arbitration 
award or otherwise objected to the award.  
Thus, the district court did not have any basis to question the 
arbitration award and properly confirmed it in accordance with § 1-36-113. 

 
 
[¶17]   Affirmed.  

            

FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Although 
this fact is not confirmed in the record, the parties agree their dispute 
involved a MBNA credit card account.

 
 

2Section 
1-36-114 states:

 
 
(a) Upon 
application of a party the court shall vacate an award 
where:

            
     (i) The 
award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue 
means;

            
     (ii) 
There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, corruption 
of any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any 
party;

            
     (iii) The 
arbitrators exceeded their powers;

            
     (iv) The 
arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown, 
refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise conducted the 
hearing as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party;  or

            
     (v) There 
was no arbitration agreement, the issue was not adversely determined by a court 
as provided by law and the applicant did not participate in the arbitration 
hearing without raising the objection.  
The fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be 
granted by a court of law or equity is not a ground for vacating or refusing to 
confirm the award.

            
(b) An application for vacating an award shall be made within ninety (90) 
days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, or if predicated 
upon corruption, fraud or other undue means it shall be made within ninety (90) 
days after the grounds are known or should have been 
known.

            
(c) In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in subsection 
(a)(v) the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided 
in the agreement or by the court in accordance with W.S. 1-36-105.  If the award is vacated on grounds set 
forth in paragraph (a)(iii) or (iv) of this section the court may order a 
rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors 
appointed in accordance with W.S. 1-36-105.  The time within which the agreement 
requires the award to be made is applicable to the rehearing and commences from 
the date of the order.

            
(d) If the application to vacate is denied and no motion to modify or 
correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the 
award.

 

3Section 
1-36-115 states:

 
 
(a) Upon 
application made within ninety (90) days after delivery of a copy of the award 
to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award 
where:

 
 
            
   (i) There was an 
evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of 
any person or property referred to in the award;

            
   (ii) The arbitrators 
awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected 
without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted;  or

            
   (iii) The award is 
imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the 
controversy.

            
(b) If the application is granted, the court shall modify and correct the 
award as to intent and shall confirm the award as so modified and 
corrected.  Otherwise the court 
shall confirm the award as made.

            
(c) 
An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the alternative 
with an application to vacate the award.