### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00327- CV

Alison Michels Law rence , Appellan t

v. Brian Craig Gar sson, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 53RD J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 13- 0058 33, H ONO RAB LE AMY CLARK MEACH UM, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Alison Michels L awr ence appea ls the district court’s order confirming an arbitra tion
awa rd i n which she was ordere d to pay Br ian Craig Gar sson the sum of $34,435.87 in an ongoing dispute arising out of a co-ow nership ag ree ment they signe d as part of their ag ree d divorce decr ee. Rece ntly , this Court deter mined a re l at ed appea l of an arbitra tion awa rd that conce rned the same substantive issues betwee n the parties as those here in and awa rded Gar sson another signific ant
sum of money for expenses advanc ed over a previous time period. See Lawrence v. Garsson , No. 03-16-00047- CV, 2016 WL 4177244, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug
. 3, 2016 , n o pet. h.) (mem. op.). For the same rea sons we aff irmed confirma tion of the awa rd in that appea l, w e aff

irm the district court’s or der of confirma tion here.DISCUSSIO N 1 L a w r e n c e c o mp lains that the trial court err ed by g ranting Gar sson’ s mo ti o n to c o n f ir m the so-ca lled “Six th Awar d” signe d by the arbitra tor on Marc h 11, 2016. As in the previous appea l
conce rning the so-ca lled “F ifth Awar d,” she c ontends that the ar bitrator excee ded his authority by failing to “pre serve the essenc e” of the co-ow nership ag ree ment in making the awa rd. At its core, L awr ence ’s complaint on a p p e a l is that the arbitra tor improperly shifted the timing of reimburse ment pay ments tha t L a w r e n c e mu s t ma

k e to G arsson conce rning the co-ow ned proper ty (such as mortg ag e, tax, and insurance pay

ments) to “ rea l time” as opposed to upon sale of the prope rty as provided in the orig inal co-ow nership ag ree ment. The co-ow nership ag ree ment addre ssed sale of the proper ty , pay ment of expenses associate d there with until sale, and ultimate disbursement of the sale proce eds and conta ined a br oad ar

bitration clause. The so-ca lled “F ourth Clarified Awar d” issued by the arbitra tor addre ssed Gar sson’s
a ll e g a ti o n s th a t L a w r e n c e w a s n o t c o o p e r a

ti n g w it h a tt e mp ts to li s t a

n d s e ll th e p r o p e r

ty
. T h a t a w a r d , which was confirme d by the district court without challeng e by either party , resolved the parties’ then dispute by chang ing the timing of reimburse ment pay ments to rea l time and order ing L awr ence to vacate t he property
. The Fifth and S ix th Aw ar d s m er el y reduc ed to a fix ed sum the amount of reimburse ment then due to Gars son by L awr ence , which rea l-time reimburse ment had alre ady been authorized by

the uncha lleng ed F ourth Clarified Aw ard. A s we previously held with r espec t t o t h e Fifth Awar d, we ag ain hold that the arbitra tor did not exceed his authority based o n o u r

Be cause the parties ar e fa m i l i ar with the fac ts, proce dural backg round, and applicable 1 standard of revie w, we dispense with a rec itation of those here exc ep t as nece ssary to explain the rea sons for our de cision. See Tex. R. App. P . 47.4. 2“extraordinar ily narr o w” re v i ew of arbitra tion awa rds; the presumptions in favor of awa rds; the circ umstances here ; our conclusion that the awa rd was “ra tionally infera ble” from t h e p ar ties’ agr eement and previous unchalleng ed award, give n the arbitrator’s broad di scre tion in fashioni n g
an appropr iate reme dy ; and the alleg ed fac ts’ “sig nificant rela tionship” t o t h e p ar t ies’ ag ree ment. See id. I n an additional issue that was not raised in her previous appea l, L awr ence contends that confirma tion of the awa rd was in err or beca

use the arbitra tor did not allow a hear in g prior to issuing the a

war d. The Six th Awar d rec ites that the arbitra tor rec eived a response from L awr ence to Gar sson’s claims, and that the ar b i trator revie wed and studied the written submissi ons of both p a r ti e s in ma k in g th e a w a r d
. L a w r e n c e h a s c it e d n o a

u th o r it y in s u p p o r t o f h e r a r g u me n t th a t a h e a r in g was also nece ssary , and we acc ording ly overr ule t he is sue. See Tex. R. App. P
. 38.1(i) (requiring appellant’ s brief to contain “cle ar and concise arg ument for the contentions made, with appropr iate citations to authorities and to the rec ord”) ; Liberty Mu t
. In s . C o . v. Griesing , 150 S.W .3d 640, 6 4 8 (Tex
. App.—Austin 2004, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (“B are asser tions of err or, without citations to authority , waive e rror .”).
CONCLUSION

We aff irm the district court’s final o rd er confirming the arbitra tion awa rd of Marc h 11, 2016.

3__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Affir med Filed: September

20, 2016

4