COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

AGE I NDUSTRI ES, L TD., Appellant,

v. THOMAS EDWARDS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-08-00246- CV

Appea l from the County Court at L aw No. F ive of El Paso County , Texas (TC# 2007-512)

O P I N I O N Ag e I ndustries, L td. (Ag e I ndustries) appea ls the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration

awa rd and a sserts that the trial c ourt committed err or. We aff irm. BACK GR OUND Thomas Edwar ds filed suit ag ainst Ag e Industries fo r brea ch of a written employ ment contra ct and fra

ud. The trial court gra

nted Age I ndustries’ Mot ion to Stay L itigation and Compel Arbitration. The arbitrator awa rded Edwar ds the prese nt cash value of his employ ment contra ct, an additional $14,500, $32,000 in attorney ’s fee s, pre- judgme nt and post-judgme nt interest as allowed by law, and denied Edwar ds all other relief

. Edwar ds then filed a motion to confirm the arbitration

awa rd and soug ht a conditional awa rd of additional attorney ’s fees, i ntere st, and court costs. Ag e I ndustries filed its response to the motion, asser ting that the arbitrat o r m i s i n t erpreted the law resulting in a “g ross mistake.” The trial court enter ed its final judgme nt confirming the arbitrator’s

awa rd and g rante d Edwar ds’ reque st for fee s, interest, and costs. Ag e I ndustries now appea ls the trial court’ s final judg ment confirming the ar bitrator’s a

war d.I n two issues, Ag e I ndustries essentially contends that it is entitled to r elief beca use (1) the trial court er re d when it confirme d the arbitrator’s awa rd as there was no binding compensa tion ag ree ment betwee n E d wa rd s and Ag e I ndustries, and (2) the trial court failed to follow Texas contra ct law. We disag ree . DISCUSSIO N Our revie w of a trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration awa rd is extraordinarily narr ow. Garza v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. , 262 S.W .3d 514, 517 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2008, no pet.). We re v i ew de novo a trial court’s decision to confirm an arbitration awa rd and, in doing so, we revie w the entire rec ord. Statewide Remode ling, Inc. v. W illiams, 244 S.W .3d 564, 5 6 7 -6 8 (Tex

. App. – Dallas 2008, no pet.); Home Owners Mgmt. Enters., Inc. v. Dean , 230 S.W .3d 766, 768 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2007, no pet.), citing Tanox, Inc. v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P ., 105 S.W .3d 244, 250 (Tex. A pp. – Houston [14t h Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) . We give strong defe renc e to the ar b i t rator with respe ct to issues proper ly left to the arbitrator’s resolution. Xtria L.L.C

. v. Intern. Ins. Alliance Inc. , 286 S.W .3d 5 8 3 , 5 9 1 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2009, pet. denied) ; Am. R ea lty Trust, Inc. v. JDN Real Estate-Mc Kinney, L.P. , 74 S.W .3d 527, 531 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2002, pet. denied)

. A non-pre vailing pa

rty seeking to va cate or modify an ar bitrator’s a

war d has the burde n to bring fo rt h in the trial court a complete rec ord of arbitra tion proce eding s and establish any basis, including constitutional g rounds, which would war rant th e t ri al co u rt’s entry of a vacated or modified judgme nt. GJR Mgmt Holdings, L.P. v. Jack Raus, Ltd. and JMG Construction, Inc. , 126 S.W .3d 257, 263 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2003, pet. denied) . When there is no tra nscript of the arbitration hearing , a court is unable to deter mine what evidenc e the arbitrator ref used to hear or what evidenc e was offe red befor e the arbitrator and w e w il l, conseque ntly , presume the evidenc e wasadequate to support the awa rd. Statewide Remode ling, Inc. , 244 S.W .3d at 568; Jamison & Harris

v. Nat’l Loan Inve

stors , 939 S.W .2d 735, 737 (Tex. App. – Houston [14t h Dist.] 1997, writ denied)

. I ndeed, many Texas courts have held that there can be no appellate revie w of an arbitrator’s decision without a complete rec ord of the evidenc e prese nted to the arbitrator d u ri n g t h e arbitration proce eding s. Statewide Remode ling, Inc. , 244 S.W .3d at 568; Grand Homes 96, L.P. v. Loudermilk , 208 S.W .3d 696, 706 (Tex. App. – For t Worth 2006, pet. denied) (lac k of arbitration-proc eeding s

rec ord preve nts revie w of issues); GJR Mgmt Holdings, L.P. , 126 S.W .3d at 2 6 3 (because nonpreva iling party produce d no rec ord of arbitration proce eding s, appellate court was unable to judge whether the alleg ed misconduct in fac t occur red and, if it occur

red, whether it deprive d the appea ling p ar t y of a fair hear ing)

. Neither attorney s’ rec ollections of testimony of what was or was no t prese nted to an arbitrator, nor attachme nts to motions to vacate o r m o d ify awa rds, will provide a complete r ecor d of ar

bitration proce eding s. Statewide Remode ling, Inc. , 244 S.W .3d at 569. When matters are proper ly submitt ed befor e him, an arbitrator’s awa rd is entitled to the same eff ect as a judgme nt of a court of last resor t. Qui n n v. N

a f t a Traders, Inc., 257 S.W .3d 795, 798 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2008, pet. g rante d); see CVN Gr o u p v. De lgado , 95 S.W .3d 234, 238 (Tex. 2002) (ar bitration awa

rd has the same eff

ect as a judgme nt of a court of last resor t, and a revie wing court may not substitut e its judgme nt for that of the arbitrators mere ly beca use it would have rea ched

a differ ent decision). The arbitrator’s awa rd is conclusive as to all matters of fac t and law. Colli ns

v. Tex. Mall, L.P. , 297 S.W .3d 40 9 , 4 1 5 -16 (Tex. App. – For t Worth 2009, no pet.), citing Nafta T r a d er s , Inc., 257 S.W .3d at 798. Review of an arbitration awa rd is, in fac t, so limit ed that t h e

awa rd may not be vacated even i f t h er e i s a mistake of fac t or law. Rapid Settlements, Ltd. v. Syme tra Life I

ns. Co., 234 S.W .3d 788, 798 (Tex. A pp. – Ty ler 2007, no pet.) (fa ilure of arbitrator to corr ectly apply the law provides no basis for setting aside arbitrator’s awa rd); Crossmark, Inc. v.Hazar , 124 S.W .3d 422, 429 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2004, pet. denied) , citing A n z i l o t t i v. Gene D.

Liggin, Inc. , 899 S.W .2d 264, 266 (Tex. App. – Houston [14t h Dist.] 1995, no writ) (holding t hat courts may

not vacate ar

bitration awa

rd eve n when ba sed upon mistake in fa ct or law ). As in this case , a party seeking judicial revie w of an arbitration awa rd g overne d by the Texas Gene ral Arbitration Act (TAA) is limit ed to a revie w based on the g rounds enumer ated in the statute. T E X . C I V . P R A C . & R E M . C O D E AN N . §§ 171

. 0 8 7, 171.088, & 171.091 (Ve rnon 2005); Nafta Traders, Inc., 257 S.W .3d at 799. I n fac t, the TAA mandates confirmation of the arbitration awa rd except wher e the statutory g rounds set forth in Sections 171.088 or 171.091 of the TAA are offe red fo r v ac at i o n, modification, or corr ection of the awa rd. T E X . C I V . P R A C . & R E M . C O D E AN N . § 171.087 (Ve rnon 2005); Naf t a Traders, Inc., 257 S.W .3d at 799; Callahan & Associates v. Orangefield Indep. Sch. Dist

. , 92 S.W .3d 841, 844 (Tex. 2002). Where ther e is no alleg ation of a statutory or common law g round to vaca te or modify the ar

bitration awa

rd, we lack jurisdiction to revie w the arbitrator’s decision. Providian Bancorp Servic es v. Thomas , 255 S.W .3d 411, 415 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2008, no pet.); Lee v. El Paso County , 965 S.W .2d 668, 671-72 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1998, pet. denied)

. Application of L aw We first note that no rec ord of the arbitration proce eding s was prese nted to the trial court and

none is befor e us now. As in t he trial court below, beca use we do not have a rec ord of the proce eding s by which to consider Ag e I ndustries’ complaints, beca use we do not know what evidenc e or law the arbitrator did or did not have befor e it for its consideration, and beca use we do not know wh at l aw the arbitrator did or did not apply in deter mining Edwar ds’ awa

rd, we are ultimately unable to judge whether the alleg ed mistake of law and g ross mistake occur red and, if it did occur , we cannot deter mine whether or not it deprive d Ag e I ndustries of a fair arbitrationproce eding

. Statewide Remode ling, Inc. , 244 S.W .3d at 568; Jamison & Harris , 939 S.W .2d at 737;

Grand Homes 96, L.P. , 208 S.W .3d at 7 06; GJR Mgmt Holdings, L.P. , 126 S.W .3d at 263. We must, there fore , presume that the e vidence was adequate to support the arbitrator’s awa rd. Statewide Remode ling, Inc. , 244 S.W .3d at 568; Jamison & Harris , 939 S.W .2d at 737. Ag e I ndustries contends that no r e c o r d o f the arbitra tion proce eding s is require d in this appea l beca use it now raises questions of law. The arbitrator’s awa rd is conclusive as to all matters of fac t and law, and we are mindful that even with the benef it of the arbitration rec ord, which we do not have, our revie w of the arbitra tion aw ar d i s so narr owly limit ed that we may not vacate the arbitration awa

rd even if the arbitrator committed a mistake of fac t or law as Ag e I ndustries alleg es in this instance. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 234 S.W .3d at 798; Colli ns , 297 S.W .3d at 415-16; Nafta Traders, Inc., 257 S.W .3d at 798; Crossmark, Inc. , 124 S.W .3d at 429. Appellant’s two issues on a ppeal a re ove rruled. CONCLUSION The trial c ourt’s judg ment is affirme d.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice J une 30, 2010 Be fore Chew, C.J ., Rivera, J., and Gomez, J udg e Gomez, J udg e, sitting by

assig nment