NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENT IAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

JEFFERY C. KOHNER
, Plaintiff/ Counter

- Defendant/

Appellant
,

v.

MARK B. PYPER and LOREN M. PYPER
, husband and wife,

Defendant s

/Appellee s,

and

OWENS & PYPER, P.L.C., an Arizona professional limited liability

company, Defendant/Counter

- C laimant/Appellee

.

No. 1 CA

- CV 11

- 0471

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV 2009

- 006706 The Honorable J. Kenneth Mangum
, Judge (Retired)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Jeffery C. Kohner, Mesa Plaintiff/ Counter

- D efendant/

Appellant2

Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, LLP
, Phoenix By John R. Cunningham Co

- C ounsel for Defendant s /Appellee s
Owens & Pyper, P.L.C. , Phoenix By Bradley T. Owens Co

- Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

D O W N I E , Judge:

¶1 Jeff ery C. Kohner appeals a judgment confirm ing an arbitration award in favor of Mark B. Pyper, Loren M. Pyper, and Owen s & Pyper, P.L.C

. (collectively, “Pyper”). For the following reasons, we affirm

.

FACT S AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1

¶2 Kohner filed a complaint against Pyper
, alleging claims for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of Pyper’s legal representation of Kohner in prior litigation. Pyper counterclaimed for breach of contract stemming from Kohner’s failure to pay legal fees. After the superior court set the case for tr ial, the parties agreed to a binding arbitration proceeding. The arbitrator issued a Final Arbitration Award on March 8, 2011, and Pyper sought to confirm the award pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12

- 3022

. ¶3 Kohner’s counsel moved to withdraw and asked the court to allow Kohner additional time to respond to the motion to confirm the arbitration award. The court granted the motion to withdraw and gave Kohner until May 20, 2011 to respond to Pyper’s motion

. O n May 20, 2011, Kohner request ed a sixty

- day extension of time to obtain an attorney and

1 We deny Pyper’s request to di s miss the appeal b ased on Kohner ’s failure to file a cost bond or an opening brie f that complies with ARCAP 13(a)

. We rely on our independent review of the record in reciting the facts and procedural background. See Sholes v. Fernando, 228 Ariz. 455, 457 n.2, ¶ 2, 268 P.3d 1112, 1114 n.2 (App. 2011)

.KOHNER v. PYPER Decision of the Court

3 file an objection
, but the court denied his request, entered an order confirming the arbitration award, and issued a judgment in favor of Pyper. Kohner timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12

- 2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶4 J udicial review of an arbitration award is limited by statute. Atreus Cmtys. Grp. of Ariz

. v. Stardust Dev., Inc. , 229 Ariz. 503, 506, ¶ 13, 277 P.3d 208, 211 ( Ap p. 2012)

. Provided that an arbitrator act s within the bounds of his or her authority, we will affirm confirmation of the ensuing award unless the superior court abused its discretion. Id. If an arbitrator’s award is within the scope of the parties’ agr eement, the decision is final as to both issues of fact and law, regardless of the correctness of the decision. Id

. ; see also Chang v. Si u , 234 Ariz. 442, 446, ¶ 14, 323 P.3d 725, 729 (App. 2014 ). We thus do not consider Kohner’s contention that the arbitrator erroneously decided the underlying dispute

. And Kohner does not argue that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority

. ¶5 We disagree with Kohner ’s contention that the court erred by confirming the arbitration award prior to expiratio n of the 90

- day period within which a motion to vacate may be filed

. Under the Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, A.R.S. §§ 12

- 3001 t o

- 3029
, (the “Act”)
, upon completion of an arbitration proceeding , a party may ask the superior court to confirm th e arbitrator ’ s award. A.R.S. § 12

- 3022. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12

- 3023, a party aggrieved by the award may move to vacate it on certain limited grounds

. The superior court “shall vacate” an award : if procured by fraud ; on a showing of “ [ e ] vident partiality,” corruption
, or misconduct by the arbitrator ; if the arbitrator exceeded his powers, conducted the arbitration without notice
, or refused to postpone the hearing despite sufficient cause; or if “[t]here was no agreement to arbitrate.” A motion to vacate must be filed within 90 days of the movant’s receipt of notice of the arbitration award, or
, if based on fraud, corruption or other undue means, within 90 days after the movant kn e w or with reasonable care sh ould have known o f the ground. A.R.S . § 12

- 3023(B).

¶6 T he Act does not prohibit confirmation of an arbitration award prior to expiration of the 90

- day deadline to move to vacate. Indeed,
t he comment to the relevant section of the Uniform Arbitration Act state s that a court need not wait the e ntire 90 day s before ruling on a motion to confirm

. Uniform Arbitration Act § 22 , cmt. 1 (2000) . I nstead
, once the prevailing party moves to confirm, the opposing party may either : (1) file a motion to vacate at that time or (2) file a motion to vacate within the 90

- dayKOHNER v. PYPER Decision of the Court

4 statutory period

. Id

. The Arizona legislature did not modify the relevant provision or otherwise indicate that Arizona courts should follow a different procedure. Cf. In re Estate of Dobert , 192 Ariz. 248, 252, ¶ 17, 963 P.2d 327, 331 (App. 1998) ( I f an Arizona statute is based on a uniform act, courts assume the legislature “intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters,” and commentary to the uniform act is “highly persuasive unless erroneous or contrary to settled policy in this state.”).

¶7 The arbitrator entered the Final Arbitration Award on March 8, 2011

. T herefore, the deadline for moving to vacate the award was June 6, 2011. Kohner d id not oppose the motion to confirm and did not timel y move to vacate the award. And neither in the superior court nor in this Court has Kohner asserted grounds on which he would be entitled to relief under A.R.S. § 12

- 3023 (A)

. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the superior court’s decision to confirm the arbitration award.

¶8 We also reject Kohner’s argument that t he superior court should have granted him additional time to move to vacate the arbitration award or retain new counsel

. Under Arizona law
, a party appearing with out a lawyer is enti tled to no more consideration than a party represented by counsel and is held to the same standard as an attorney. In re Marriage of Williams , 219 Ariz. 5 46, 549, ¶ 13, 200 P.3d 1043, 1046 ( App. 2008)

. Moreover, Kohner has demonstrated no prejudice arisi ng from the ruling . He has, for example, identified no colorable claim or defense he might have advanced had he been given additional time or had the assistance of counsel.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm the judgment of the superior court. We deny Pyper’s requ est for an award of attorneys’ fees p ursuant to A.R.S. § 12

- 34 1.01(A) , which p ermits a discretionary award to the successful party in an action arising out of a contract

. T he underlying issues in this case do not arise out of contract

. See Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A

- D , 155 Ariz. 519, 524, 747 P.2d 1218, 1223 (1987) ( L egal malpractice claims do not arise out of contract for purposes of § 12

- 341.01

. ); Dooley v. O ’ Brien , 226 Ariz. 149, 154, ¶ 18, 244 P.3d 586, 591 (App. 2010) ( A ctions to enforce fi duciary duties created by law do not arise out of contract for purposes of § 12

- 341.01)

.KOHNER v. PYPER Decision of the Court

5 A dditionally, although we disagree with Kohner’s substantive claims, we decline to award fees as a sanction under ARCAP 25 . However, as t he prevailing party o n appeal, Pyper is entitled to an award of costs upon compliance with A RCAP 21

.