RENDERED: NOVEMBER 4, 2022; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2021-CA-0618-MR

CHARLES “SKEE” BAUER APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE JERRY CROSBY, II, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 17-CI-00771

ROGER BAUER, BOTH 

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF 

OF THE CHARLES F. BAUER 

REALTY PARTNERSHIP, LLLP APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: CETRULO, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

LAMBERT, JUDGE: Charles “Skee” Bauer appeals the Oldham Circuit Court 

orders concerning the arbitration award pertaining to Roger Bauer’s claims against 

Skee over the family trust. We affirm.

Skee and Roger are half-brothers, both sons of Charles F. Bauer, Sr. 

The family trust was created in 2007, while Charles was still living, and the three 
-2-

men comprised equal one/third ownership. Prior to December 2012, the principal 

property owned by the partnership consisted of several establishments in Louisville 

on Brownsboro Road (namely, at 3608 to 3624). In that month, what had been 

Doll’s Market (a grocery store of many decades in that location) sold for over $2.5 

million. The monies realized were placed in the trust, and the partnership retained 

ownership of the adjoining properties. Skee brokered the deal and managed all the 

business relating to the trust.

Charles Sr. passed away in February 2013. It was not until the 

following year that Roger began asking Skee to see the financial statements for the 

partnership. When none was forthcoming in spite of repeated requests, Roger 

(individually and on behalf of the trust) filed suit against Skee in 2017 in Oldham 

Circuit Court. In February 2019, Skee moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the 

partnership agreement. An order staying the action was entered, and a three-day 

arbitration hearing was held. The arbitration award was entered on August 13, 

2020. A further hearing was held on October 30, 2020, on Skee’s petition to 

vacate or modify the award. The matter then moved to circuit court for review. 

The circuit court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision on January 22, 2021. Skee filed 

a post-judgment motion pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 

59.05. The motion was denied on April 21, 2021, after which Skee filed his notice 

of appeal.
-3-

The crux of this appeal turns on whether the parties effectively agreed 

that the circuit court could review the arbitrator’s award for errors of law. Skee 

insists that he and Roger agreed to this, with circuit court approval, and that 

subsequent orders entered by the circuit court denied Skee of this agreed-upon

right. We find no such error and affirm.

Skee specifically points to this language in the arbitrator’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law: “the parties have requested that findings be made so 

that they may challenge any legal conclusions they believe to be incorrect in the 

Oldham County Circuit Court.” The emphasis here should be on whether such a 

review took place and is permitted by law.

Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 417.160 and 417.170 provide the 

framework for arbitration review. KRS 417.160 (“Vacating an award”) 

enumerates the following bases which allow an award to be vacated, namely:

(1) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an 

award where: 

(a) The award was procured by corruption, 

fraud or other undue means; 

(b) There was evident partiality by an 

arbitrator appointed as a neutral or 

corruption in any of the arbitrators or 

misconduct prejudicing the rights of any 

party; 

(c) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; 
-4-

(d) The arbitrators refused to postpone the 

hearing upon sufficient cause being 

shown therefor or refused to hear evidence 

material to the controversy or otherwise so 

conducted the hearing, contrary to the 

provisions of KRS 417.090, as to prejudice 

substantially the rights of a party; or 

(e) There was no arbitration agreement and 

the issue was not adversely determined in 

proceedings under KRS 417.060 and the 

party did not participate in the arbitration 

hearing without raising the objection; but the 

fact that the relief was such that it could not 

or would not be granted by a court is not 

ground for vacating or refusing to confirm 

the award.

And KRS 417.170 (“Modification or correction of award”) provides 

the following guidance:

(1) 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: 

(a) There was an evident miscalculation of 

figures or an evident mistake in the 

description of any person, thing or property 

referred to in the award; 

(b) The arbitrators have 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 

(c) The award is imperfect in a matter of 

form, not affecting the merits of the 

controversy.
-5-

The Kentucky Supreme Court recently visited this issue in the case of 

Don Booth of Breland Group v. K&D Builders, Inc., 626 S.W.3d 601 (Ky. 2021), 

where it reiterated that KRS 417.160 delineates the limited bases for vacating an 

arbitrator’s award. The Court reiterated the following standard of review:

Generally, courts may not review an arbitrator’s award. 

Taylor v. Fitz Coal Co. Inc., 618 S.W.2d 432, 432 (Ky. 

1981). Kentucky’s Uniform Arbitration Act, KRS 

Chapter 417, strictly circumscribes when a court review 

of an arbitration decision is appropriate. 3D Enters.

Contracting Corp. v. Lexington-Fayette Urb. Cty. Gov’t, 

134 S.W.3d 558, 562 (Ky. 2004). An arbitration award 

may not be set aside for mere errors of law or fact, Smith 

v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 253 S.W.2d 629, 630 (Ky. 

1952), and “an arbitrator’s resolution of factual disputes 

and his application of the law are not subject to review by 

the courts.” Conagra Poultry Co. v. Grissom Transp., 

Inc., 186 S.W.3d 243, 245 (Ky. App. 2006) (citation 

omitted).

626 S.W.3d at 606-07 (footnotes omitted).

It matters not what the parties agreed to do: They cannot rewrite the 

laws passed by the General Assembly and interpreted by the courts. Conagra 

Poultry Co., 186 S.W.3d at 245 (citing to 3D Enterprises, supra).

Furthermore, the parties did receive meaningful review from the 

circuit court on two occasions after the arbitrator’s decision. 

Skee received the full benefit of the arbitration process and circuit 

court review. His dissatisfaction lays with the arbitrator’s findings of fact, which 

he concedes are not reviewable, rather than the conclusions of law. It was Skee 
-6-

who sought to enforce the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement (and 

rightly so) after Roger brought suit in the circuit court. Skee does nothing to 

convince us that the arbitration process here was statutorily unsound. Nor are his 

allegations of arbitrator partiality persuasive. The three-day hearing was 

comprehensive, and neither party was hindered in the presentation of evidence or 

testimony. The fact that Skee was disappointed with the outcome does not provide 

the legal grounds necessary to vacate the arbitration award or the circuit court’s 

orders affirming same. See Meers v. Semonin Realtors, 525 S.W.3d 545 (Ky. App. 

2017).

Accordingly, the orders of the Oldham Circuit Court are affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

J. Gregory Joyner

Louisville, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Kenneth A. Bohnert

Maureen P. Taylor

Louisville, Kentucky