## No. 13-15-00217-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

__________________________________________________________________ 

### SHERI EDDLEMAN, Appellant/Defendant,

v. MATTHEW J. OCKER, Appellee/Plaintiff.

__________________________________________________________________



### Appealed from 319th District Court Nueces County, Texas Cause No. 2013-DCV-4182-G Hon. David Stith

__________________________________________________________________



## REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT SHERI EDDLEMAN

__________________________________________________________________ Robert E. McKnight, Jr. Texas Bar No. 24051839 Lynn A. Knaupp Texas Bar No. 11587900 Marek, Griffin & Knaupp 203 N. Liberty Street Victoria, Texas 77901 Tel: (361) 573-5500 Fax: (361) 573-5040 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Attorneys for Sheri Eddleman ACCEPTED 13-15-00217-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 10/7/2015 2:32:02 PM Dorian E. Ramirez

CLERKTa bl e o f Co ntents

Tab le o f Co n t en t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Tab le o f Au t h o ri t i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i Arg um en ti n Rep l y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Th e Breach o f Co n t ract Is s u e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1
. Lacko f Ag reem en ti s No tan Affi rm at i v e Defen s e. . . . . . . . . . 3 2
. J u d g e Al cal a’ s Deci s i o n i s No t atIs s u e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Th e At t o rn ey ’ s Fees / Co s t s Is s u e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1
. Fees / Co s t s i n th e 2 4 t h Di s t ri ctCo urt , th en i n th e 2 01 4 Ap p eal t o th i s Co u rt , th en i n Arb i t rat i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
a. Ock er Di dNo t Prev ai l i n th e 2 0 1 4 Ap p eal
. . . . . . . . . . 1 3 b
. Ock er Di dNo t Prev ai l i n th e 3 1 9 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rt
. . . . 1 6 C. Th e M ot i o n t o Ab at e o r Tran s fer Ven u e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 D. Th e Pro cedu ral Po s tu re o f Th i s Ap p eal
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Co n cl u s i o n an dPray er fo r Rel i ef.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Cert i fi cat e o f Co m

p l i an ce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Cert i fi cat e o f Serv i ce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5

iTa bl e o f Autho ri ti es

Ca s es Bla ck v. S

h o r , 4 43 S.W .3 d 1 5 4 (Tex . Ap p .-Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 2 01 3 , p et . d en ied ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 , 8 , 1 5 E. Texa s S

a l t W a t er Dis p os a l Co . v. W

er l i n e , 3 0 7 S.W .3 d2 6 7 (Tex . 2 0 10 ).
. . . . 2 3 In r e Gu a rdi a n s hi

p o f Ca nt u d e Vi l l a r r ea l , 3 3 0 S.W .3 d1 1 (Tex
. Ap p.- Co rp u s Ch ri st i 2 0 1 0, n o p et ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 , 1 9 In th e In t er es t

o f H.N.O. a n d M.H.O. , No . 1 3 -1 4-0 0 1 25 -CV, 2 0 1 4 W L 3 5 4 1 8 0 3 (Tex . Ap p .-Co rp u s Ch ri s t i J ul y 1 7, 2 0 14 , n o p et .).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 S ch us t er v. W i ld , No . 1 3 -1 3 -0 0 4 7 4 -CV, 2 01 5 W L 2 5 1 5 64 (Tex . Ap p . - Co rp u s Ch ri st i J an . 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 , p et . d en i ed ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 S CI Texa s Fu n er a l

S er vs ., In c. v. Ro u s s et t , No . 1 3-0 3 -2 9 5 -CV, 2 00 5 W L 7 4 2 6 5 4 (Tex . Ap p .-Co rp u s Ch ri s t i M ar. 3 1 , 2 00 5 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 , 1 9 T.O. Sta n l ey Bo o t

Co . v. Ba n k o

f El Pa s o , 8 4 7 S.W .2 d2 1 8 (Tex . 1 99 2 ).
. . . . . . . . 4 Texa s Beef

Ca t t l e Co . v. Gr een , 9 2 1 S.W .2 d2 0 3 (Tex . 1 9 9 6 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 W er l i n e v. E. Texa s S

a l t W a t er Dis p o s a l Co

. , 2 0 9 S.W .3 d8 8 8 (Tex . Ap p . - Tex ark an a 2 0 0 6 ), a

f f’d , 3 0 7 S.W .3 d2 6 7 (Tex . 2 0 1 0 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
Tex a s Rul es o f Appel la te Pro cedure T E X . R. A P P . P. 3 8 .6 (c).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 T E X . R. A P P . P. 9 .4 (i )(1 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 T E X . R. A P P . P. 9 .4 (i )(3 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4

i iTex a s Rul es o f Ci v i l Pro cedure

T E X . R. C I V . P. 2 9 8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

i i iArg um ent i n Repl y 1

Sh eri Ed d l em an ’ s p ri n ci p al b ri ef ex p l ai n edi n g reat d et ai l h o w each i s s u e t h e arb i t rat o r d eci d edwas fi rm l y ro o t edi n t h e p art i es ’ ag reem en tt o arb i t rat e. Th e
res p o n s e b ri ef o f th e ap p el l ee, M at t h ew J . Ock er, d o es n o tm ean i n gfu l l y co n fro n t t h e b o dy o f Tex as l aw t h atco n t ro l s thi s ap p eal . In s t ead , h e d wel ls o n co l l at eral i rrel ev an ci es co n cern i n g the co rrect nes s o f t h e d eci s i o n s o f t h e arb i t rat o r, an dev en
o f J u d ge Al cal a, wh o s e ru l i n g s are n o tat i ss u e i n th i s cas e. If co rrect n es s were at i s su e, Ed d l em an wo u l ds t i l l p rev ai l . Bu t t h e o n l y i s s u e i s wh eth er th e arb i t rat o r ex ceed ed h i s au t h o ri t y , an dh e cl earl y d i dn o t. Ock er’ s d eci s i o n t o i g n o re th e s et tl edan dco nt ro l l i n g l aw o n th ati s s ue m ean s thath e h as fai l edt o ch al l en ge wh at Ed d lem an ’ s p ri n ci pal b ri ef es t ab l is h ed : th atth e p art i es ’ b ro adag reem en t t o arb i t rat e en co m p as s ed al l o f t h e d i s p u t es o n wh i ch t h e arb i t rat o r i s s u edan awardi n fav o r o f Ed d l em an , s o h e d i dn o tex ceed h i s
au t h o ri t y , an d t h e d i s t ri ct co u rtrev ers i bl y erred i n d en y i ng Ed d l em an ’ s m o t i o n t o
co n fi rm . Th i s Co u rts h o u l d co rrect th at erro r.

1 A p art y n o rm al l y h as 2 0 d ay s t o fi l e a rep l y b ri ef. T E X . R. A P P . P. 3 8 .6 (c). In th i s cas e, aft er t h e Co u rts eto ral arg u m en to n Oct o b er 1 5 , i tg ran t edap p el l ee’ s m o ti o n fo r an ex t rao rd i n ary ex t en s i o n o f 9 0 d ay s t o fi l e h is res p o n se b ri ef. Itwas du e o n Sep t em

b er 2 8 , wh ich was th en al t ered t o Sep t em ber 2 9
. Th i s al l o wedth e ap p el l an to n l y 1 6 d ay s t o fi l e t he rep ly , an di n real i t y m uch l es s , b ecau s e t h e ap p el l an two u l dn atu ral l y wan th er rep ly fi l edl o n g en o ug h b efo re t h e o ral arg u m en tth atth e p an el wo u l d h av e ad eq u at e t i m e t o rev i ew i t, as th e Ru l es en v is i o n . 1A. The Brea ch o f Co ntra ct I s s ue

On e o f t h e i s su es i n th i s ap p eal i s wh et h er t h e d i s t ri ctco u rterred i n fi n d i n g t h atth e arb i t rat o r ex ceed ed h i s au t h o ri t y b y “ creat in g an i rreco n ci l ab l e am b i g u i t y ” (CR 4 2 4 at¶ D) wh en h e fo u ndth atEd d l em an “ fai ledt o ex ch an g e t h e ch i l dren ... as co n tem p l at edb y th e [M ed i at edSet tl em en tAg reem en twi t h h er ex -h u sb an d , Ock er] ,” b u tal s o th ats h e was t h e p rev ai l i n g p art y o n th i s b reach -o f-co n tract i s s u e. ( Id

. ) Th i s al l eg edam

b i g ui t y w as th e d i s t ri ctco u rt ’ s reas o n fo r d en y i n g Ed d lem an ’ s m ot i o n t o co n fi rm th e award (an d fo r g ran t i n g Ock er’ s m o ti o n t o
v acat e). Ock er’ s res p o ns e b ri ef fai l s t o ex pl ai n wh y , ev en i f t h e arb i t rat o r h ad
ren d ered an am

b i g u o us d eci s i o n
— an dh e d i dn o t

—h e ex ceed edh i s au th o ri t y . No t h i n g i n Ock er’ s res p o n s e b ri ef ch an g es the fact th atwh en J u d g e Al cal a
o rd ered (atth e h eari n g o n J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 1 3 ) t h e p art i es t o return t o th e m ed i at o r, h e h el do n t h e reco rdth at t h e p art i es ’ d i fferen ces ab ou tth e M SA m ean tth at“ [t ] h ere i s n o ag reem en t ” (o t h er t h an th e ag reem en t s i n ¶ 1 0 , i n cl u d i n g t o m ed i at e/ arb i t rat e), an d t h at “ t h e o rd ers ... i n effect are t h e l as to rd ers o f th e Co u rt .” 2 An d t h ere i s s t i ll n o d i s p u t e th atth e M SA req u iredEd d l em an t o ex ch an g e t h e ch i l dren i n Cam ero n, Tex as (CR 8 7 ), b utthat“ t h e l as to rd ers o f t h e Co urt ” p reced in g th e M SA d i dn o t . Th ere i s al s o n o d i s p u t e t h atEd dl em an , aft er t h e h eari n g o n J u n e 2 5 ,

2 Bo t h p art i es i n cl u dedex cerp t s fro m th e t ran s cri p to f t h e h eari n g , Ed d lem an atAp p en d i x B o f h er b ri ef, an d Ock er at Ap p en d i x A o f h i s b ri ef.
22 0 1 3 , co m

p l i edwi t h “ t h e l as t o rd ers o f t h e Co u rt ,” n o tthe M SA. Th ats h e d i dn otco m

pl y wi t h t h e M SA aft er J u n e 2 5 was o ne o f Ock er’ s
co m p l ai n t s i n t h e arb i t rat i o n , 3 b u tth e arb i t rat o r reject ed t h atco m p l ai n tan dfo u n d i n fav o r o f Ed d l em an o n the g ro u n dth ats h e co m pl i edwi t h J ud g e Al cal a’ s ru l i n g s
o n J u n e 2 5 th atth e M SA was n o ti n effect (o th er t h an ¶ 1 0 ). Th ere was n o t h i n g
am bi g uo u s — an dn o th i n g thatex ceed edthe arb i t rat o r’ s au t h o ri t y
— i n th e arb i t rat o r’ s fi n d i n g t h atEd dl em an p rev ai l ed o n th i s i ss u e ev en t h o u g h s he d i dn o t
ex ch an g e t h e ch i ld ren as co n tem p l at edb y the M SA, b ecau s e J u d ge Al cal a h ad
ru l edthats h e was n o treq u i redt o d o s o .

1 . La ck

o f Ag reem ent i s No t a n Affi rm a ti v e Defens e Ock er’ s res p o n s e b ri ef co n t en d s th atthe arb it rat o r s h o u l d n o t h av e
co n si d ered Ed dl em an ’ s arg um en t t h atth e M SA was n oti n effect wh en s h e d i d n o t
ex ch an g e t h e ch i ld ren i n Cam ero n . Acco rd in g t o Ock er, t h atwas an affi rm at i v e d efen s e t o h i s cl ai m

th atEd d l em an b reach edth e M SA, an d s he fai l edt o p l eadth at d efen s e i n h er an s wer. (Ock er Am . Br. at1 0 & 4 5 8 .) Onth e co n t rary : M SAs are co n t ract s (as Ock er h i m s el f p o in t s o u t : Ock er

3 Itwas o n e o f t h e i ss u es h e co m p l ai nedab ou ti n th e l aws ui th e fi l edi n th e 3 1 9 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rt(CR 7 -8 ), s o i t b ecam e o n e o f th e i s s u es th atthe p art i es ag reed t o arb i t rat e. (CR 2 46 : “ T h e arb i t rat i o n i s i n t en d edt o res o l v e al l cu rren t l y p en di n g i s s u es i n t h e 3 1 9 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rt... as wel l as al l th e i s s u es cu rren t l y p en di n g i n th e 1 3 th Co u rto f Ap p eal s .”)
3Am . Br. at2 0 ), o f wh i ch an es s en t ial el em en ti s an ag reem en t , 4 an d i n th i s cas e

J u d g e Al cal a fo u n dthat“ [t ] h ere i s n o ag reem en t ” (o t h er t han th e ag reem en t s i n ¶ 1 0). Wh en Ock er s u edl at er i n th e 3 19 t h Di s t ri ctCo urtfo r b reach o f th e M SA wi t h res p ect t o th e v i s it at i o n i s s u e, an ag reem en twas an es s en t i al el em en to f h is cl ai m . Al l Ed d l em an h adt o d o was d en y i t, an ds h e d i d s o b y way o f a g en eral d en ial . (CR 2 2 at ¶ 1 4 .) An affi rm at i v e d efen s e, o n th e o t her h an d , “ d o es n o ts eek t o d efen db y

m erel y d en y i n g t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m s , b u trat her s eek s t o es t ab l i s h an i n d ep en den treas o n wh y

the p lai n t i ff s h o u l dn o t reco v er.” Texa s Beef Ca t t l e Co . v. Gr een , 9 2 1 S.W .2 d2 0 3 , 2 1 2 (Tex . 1 9 9 6 ). Ed d l em an ’ s g en eral d en i al o f an ag reem en twas n o ti nd ep en d en to f Ock er’ s co n t en t i o n t h atthere was an ag reem en t : i t was m erel y a d en i al o f h i s co n ten t i o n , s o i t was n o tan affi rm at i v e d efen s e t h at req ui reds p eci fi c p l ead i n g .

2 . J udg e Al ca l a ’s Deci s i o n i s No t a t I s sue Ock er al s o was t es i n k qu es t i o n in g wh et h er J u d g e Al cal a, i n J u n e 2 0 1 3 , rel eas edth e p art i es fro m

co m p l i an ce wi t h t h e M SA o n the g ro u n dth at“ [t ] h ere i s
n o ag reem en t” (o t h er t han ¶ 1 0 ). Ock er’ s res p o n s e b ri ef d es cri b es th i s as “ an al l eg edo rd er” (Ock er Am . Br. at 1 0 ), “ a p h an t om Ord er” ( i d

. at4 7 ), an d“ cl earl y

4 T.O. Sta nl ey Bo o t Co . v. Ba n k o f El Pa s o , 8 4 7 S.W .2 d2 1 8 , 2 2 1 (Tex
. 1 9 9 2 ) (“ [t ] he m at eri al t erm s o f th e co nt ract m u s tb e ag reed up o n b efo re a co u rtcan en fo rce t he co n t ract ”).
4co n trary ” t o th e wri t t en o rd er t h atev en tu al l y i s s u ed( id

. at1 0.) Th ati s s h eer
n o n s en s e: J u d g e Al cal a was qu i t e cl ear o n th e reco rdo f t h e h eari n g : THE COURT: Ok ay , s o th e o rd ers are i n effect are t h e l as to rd ers o f t h e Co u rt , co rrect ? M S. KNAUPP [co u n sel fo r Ed d lem an ] : Co rrect
. Th atare wh at ’ s i n effect
. M R. KELLY [co u n s el fo r Ock er] : Yo u r Ho n or, t h e [M SA] co n t em p l at es th e ag reem en to f t h e p art i es i s n o w i n effect
. THE COURT: No . Th ere’ s n o ag reem en t , ri g h t? Th ere i s n o ag reem en tb y

y o u r o wnwo rd s s o — M R. KELLY: Th ere are d i s p u t es , b u tth ere i s an ag reem en t
. THE COURT: No . No . Th ere i s n o ag reem en t . If t h ere are d is p u t es , t h ere’ s n o ag reem en t . W e’ re n otg o i n g t o t ak e i tth atfar. (Ed d l em an Br., Ap p’ x B, Rep o rt er’ s Reco rd , M o t io n Heari ng o f J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 1 3 , at 2 9 -3 0.) Th ere i s n o t h i n g “p h an t o m ” ab o u t wh atJ u d g e Al cal a s ai do n th e reco rd
. Th erefo re, Ock er co m

p ares wh atJ u d g e Al cal a s ai do n th e reco rdwi th th e
co n ten to f t h e o rd er h e i ss u edo n J u l y 1 0 , 2 0 1 3 : 5 i n Ock er’ s v i ew, t h e fact t h atth e
o rd er s ay s n o t h i n g ab o u t t h e s tatu s o f th e M SA i s d i s p o s i t i v e. (Ock er’ s Am . Br. at 1 3 -1 4 & 4 3 -4 4.) In s o arg u i n g, Ock er l o s es s i g h t o f t h e m o t i on s t h atJ u d ge Al cal a

5 Th i s o rd er, at t ach edas Ap p en d i x C t o Ock er’ s am en dedb ri ef, i s n o tp art o f t h e ap p el l at e reco rdo f t h e cas e, b u tEd d l em an d o es n otd i s pu t e t h ati ti s an accu rat e co p y

o f J u dg e Al cal a’ s o rd er. Ed d l em an t ak es n o p o s it i on o n wh et h er t h i s Co u rts h o u l dt ak e ju di ci al n o t i ce o f t h e o rd er. 5h ad b efo re h i m : (1 ) Ed d lem an ’ s m o t i o n t o en fo rce t h e M SA as wri t t en , an d(2 )

Ock er’ s m o t i o n t o g o b ackt o m ed i at in g / arb i t rat in g th e co nt en to f th e M SA. 6 J u d g e Al cal a ab at edEd d l em an ’ s m o t i o n an d g ran tedOck er’ s . 7 Th e co m b i nedeffect o f t h es e ru l i n g s , as wel l as J u d g e Al cal a’ s co m m en t s atth e h eari n g o n J u n e 2 5, was t o m ak e cl ear t o an y o n e p ay in g at ten t i o n t o th e cas e t h atth e M SA was n o l o n g er i n effect (o t h er t h an¶ 1 0 ). Th atwas cert ai n ly th e m es s ag e t hatth e arb i t rat o r g o t :
as h e s t at edi n th e arb it ral award , J u d ge Al cal a “ fo u n d t h atth ere was n o cu rren t ag reem en tb et ween the p art i es .” (CR 3 05 at¶ 7
. ) In d r a wi n g th a t co n cl u si o n , th e
a r b i tr a t o r

i n n o wa y exceeded

h is a u th o r i t

y t o d eci d e wh eth er Ed dl ema n b r ea ch ed th e MS A. So Ock er ret reat s t o h i s t h i rdal tern at i v e p o si ti o n : i f J u d ge Al cal a d i di n d eed
ru l e t hatth ere was n o en fo rceab l e M SA (o t her t han ¶ 1 0 ), th en h e erredi n d o i n g
s o . (Ock er Am
. Br. at4 3 : “ [T] o th e ex t en tth ere i s an Ord er p urp o rt i n g t o ex cu s e

6 Al s o ati s s u e were Ed d l em an ’ s an dOck er’ s m o t i o n s fo r fees an dco s t s ( s ee Ock er Am . Br. atAp pen d i x C). J u d ge Al cal a’ s d en i al o f Ed d l em an ’ s m o ti o n i s n o t ati ss u e i n th i s ap p eal , an dh i s ab at em en to f Ock er’ s m ot i o n i s o n l y rel ev an tt o th e n ext i s su e d i s cu ss edi n th is rep l y .

7 Ock er’ s Bri ef ev i den ces s o m e co n fu s i o n o n t h i s p o i n t. Its t at es t h atJ u d g e Al cal a “ ab at edh i s ru l i n g o n th e p en d i n g m ot i o n s ,” wh i ch i m p li es t h atJ u d g e Al cal a ru l ed , an d t h en ab at edh i s ru li n g s . Rat h er, th e t ex to f t h e o rd er m ak es cl ear t h atJ u d g e Al cal a ab at edEd d l em an ’ s m o t i o n t o en fo rce t h e M SA as wri t t en , an d Ock er’ s mo t i on fo r fees an dco s t s , b y d ecl i n i n g t o ru l e o n th em u n ti l aft er t h e m ed i at i o n / arb it rat i o n . (Ock er Am . Br. atAp pen di x C.)
6EDDLEM AN fro m h er co n t ract u al o b l i g at i o ns , i t i s a v o i do rd er.”) Bu tth ati s

i rrel ev an to n two l ev el s . Atthe fi rs tl ev el , th e ru l i ng b y J u d g e Al cal a i s n o t , qu i t e
o b v i o u s l y , u n der rev iew i n t h i s Co u rt
. In fact , i n s teado f ap p eal i ng i ti n t h e n o rm al way , Ock er at t ack edi t co l l at eral l y an di m p ro p erl y (t h u s drawi n g Ed d lem an ’ s
m o ti o n t o tran s fer v en u e) b y fi l i n g s u iti n the 3 1 9 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rt
. Th ere, h e al l eg edth atEd d l em an was “ ig n o ri n g ... th e [M SA] ” b y fai l i n g t o ex ch an ge t h e ch i l dren i n Cam ero n . (CR 7 -8 .) Th e o n ly way s u ch a cl ai m

co u lds u cceedwo u l d b e i f J u d g e St i th d i sag reedwi t h J u d ge Al cal a t h at t h e M SA d i dn o tco n t ro l
. Atth e s eco ndl ev el o f i rrel ev an ce, Ed d lem anread i ly ack n o wl ed ges th atth e arb i t rat o r rel i edo n J ud g e Al cal a’ s ru l i n g th atth e M SA d i dn o tco nt ro l wh en h e reject edOck er’ s cl ai m t h at s he b reach edth e M SA. Th e arb it rat o r s i m p l y accep t ed t h e ru l in g as th e l aw o f t h e cas e. Wh et h er t o d o s o was co rrect as a m at t er o f l aw i s
n o tan is s u e t h atth i s Co urt h as an y au t h o ri t y t o d eci d e b ecau se, as i th as al read y
reco g n ized , “ [j] u d i ci al rev i ew o f an arb i trat i o n award ‘ i s s o l i m it edth atev en a
m i s t ak e o f fact o r l aw b y

th e arb i t rat o r i n the ap p l i cat i o n o f s ub s t an t i v e l aw i s n o t a p ro p er g ro u n d fo r v acat in g an award .’ ” Bla ck v. S h o r , 4 4 3 S.W .3 d1 5 4 , 1 6 9 (Tex . Ap p .-Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 2 01 3 , p et . d en i ed ). 8

8 Ed d l em an ’ s b ri ef ci t edm an y o th er au t h o ri t i es fo r t he s am e p ro p os i t i o n (Ed d l em an ’ s Bri ef at 1 6 -1 7 ), an di n th e i n t eres to f b rev i t y d o es n otrep eatth em

al l h ere. 7Ock er’ s b ri ef fai l s t o ad dres s thi s p ri n ci p l e o f Tex as l aw. In s t ead , h e ci t es

cas e l aw t o s up p o rth i s arg u m en tthatJ u d g e Al cal a h adn o juri s d ict i o n t o s etas i d e
an y p o rt i on o f t he M SA. (Ock er’ s Am . Br. at4 2 .) Bu trev i ewi n g th e co r r ectn es s o f t h e arb i t rat o r’ s accep t an ce o f Ju d g e Al cal a’ s act io n i n the l i g h t o f cas e l aw i s p reci s el y th e s ort o f m i s tak e-o f-l aw rev i ew t h at Black fo rb i d s . An d i ti s al l -t h em o re co nt rad i ct ory fo r Ock er n o w t o cri ti ci ze t h e arb i t rat o r fo r fo l l o w i n g J u d g e Al cal a’ s act i o n g i ven th atOck er i n s i s t edt o t he arb i t rat o r th atth e p art i es ’ arb i t rat i on ag reem en td i d n o t en co m p as s an y i s s u es i n t h e 2 4 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rt . (CR 2 6 8 .) Th e arb i t rat o r ag reed , an ds tat edi n h i s am en d edawardthat h e h as n o au th ori ty

t o co m m en to n , cri t i qu e, o r i n an y way ch an ge an y Ord er ari s i n g o u to f t h e 2 4 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rto f Vi ct o ri a Co u n t y , Tex as . Fo r p urp os es o f t h i s Fi rs tAm en d edArb i t rat io n Award , th is Arb i t rat o r wi l l s i m

p l y as s u m e t h atal l Ord ers i s s ui n g o u t o f t h atCo u rt are t i m el y an dv al i d
. (CR 3 0 5 ; s ee a l

so CR 2 8 0 at ¶ 8 .) Hav in g g o t t en wh at h e wan t edfro m the arb i t rat o r—n o rev i ew o f Ju d g e Al cal a’ s ru l in g s —Ock er n o w co m pl ai ns th atth e arb i t rat o r s h o u ldn o th av e fo l l o wedth e ru l in g s . Th e Co u rts h o u l dn o tt o l erat e t h i s k i n do f arg u m en t
. Th e s o l e is s u e p r o

p er l y b ef or e th e Co ur t

is wh eth er

the a r b i tr a to r

exceeded h is a u th o r i t

y i n d eci di n g th a t Ed dl ema n di d n o t

b r ea ch th e MS

A wh en s h e d i d

n o t exch a n g e th e ch i ld

ren i n Ca mer o n . Th atd ep en d s n ot o n wh et h er J u d ge Al cal a

8ru l edco rrect l y o n the s t atu s o f t h e M SA, o r wh et h er t h e arb i t rat or co rrect l y fo l l o w edJ u d g e Al cal a’ s ru l i ng , b u to n s o m ethi n g en t i rel y d i fferen t: wh et h er
acco rd i n g t o “ ‘ t h e l an g u ag e i n t h e arb i trat i o n ag reem en t , ’ ” S ch u s ter v. W i ld , No
. 1 3 -1 3-0 04 7 4 -CV, 2 0 1 5 W L 2 5 1 5 6 4 , at *3 (Tex . Ap p . -Co rp u s Ch ri s t i J an . 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 , p et . d en i ed ), t he p art i es ag reed t o s ub m it t h e b reach i s su e t o arb i t rat i o n . Ock er n o wh ere en g ag es thati s s u e i n h i s b ri ef, wh i ch i s h ard ly s u rp ri s in g : i ti s p at en to n th e face o f t h i s reco rdth atwh atthe p art i es ag reed t o arb i trat e i n cl u d ed , i n b ro adan ds weep i n g l an g u ag e, wi t h n o ex cep t i o n s, “a l l cu r r en tl y p en di n g

is s u es i n the 3 1 9 th Dis tr i ct Co u rt ” (CR 2 4 6; em p h as i s ad d ed ), an dth o s e i s s u es i n cl u d ed Ock er’ s al leg at i on th atEd d l em an was “ ig no ri n g ... th e [M SA] ” b y fai l i n g t o
ex ch an g e t h e ch i ld ren i n Cam ero n . (CR 7 -8 .) Th e p art i es g av e t h e arb i t rat o r
au t h o ri t y t o d eci d e t h ati s s u e, h e d eci d edi t , an d t h ati s th e en d o f t hi s p arto f t h e
s t ory . Th e d i s t ri ctco urt s ho u l dn o th av e d en i edEd d l em an ’ s m o t i o n t o co n fi rm th e arb i t rat o r’ s reject i o n o f Ock er’ s cl ai m o f b reach o f co n t ract
. B. The Atto rney ’s Fees / Co s ts I s s ue 1 . Fees /Co s ts i n the 2 4 th Di s tri ct Co urt, then i n the 2 01 4 Appea l to thi s Co urt, then i n Arbi tra ti o n Atth e h eari n g o n J un e 2 5 , 2 0 1 3 , an dl at er i n t h e wri t t en o rd er i s s u edo n J u l y 1 0 , 2 0 1 3 , J u d g e Al cal a d ecl i n edt o ru le o n Ock er’ s m ot i on fo r fees an dco s t s ( s ee
s u p r a no t e 7 ). Th e m o t i o n (CR 9 8 -1 0 0 ) was p rem i s edo n ¶ 1 0 o f th e M SA:

91 0
. If o n e o r m o re d i s p u t es ari s e wi t h reg ardt o t h e i n t erp ret at i o n

an d/ or p erfo rm an ce o f t h i s Ag reem en to r an y o f i t s p ro v i s i o ns (p red ecree), i n cl u d i n g d raft i ng d i s pu t es , p re-d ecree en fo rcem en tm at t ers , i s su es rel at i n g t o o m it t edp ro p ert y o r th e n eces s i t y an d fo rm o f cl o s in g d o cu m en t s , the p art ies ag ree t o res ol v e t h e d i s p u te b y m ed i at i o n wi th M ICHAEL P. O’ REILLY, th e m ed i at or, wh o faci l it at edthi s s et t l em en t . If m ed i at i o n fai l s , the p art i es ag ree t o en t er i n t o b i n di n g arb it rat i on wi t h M ICHAEL P. O’ REILLY as th e arb i t rat or an dh i s d eci s i o n o n s u ch m at t ers s h al l b e b i nd i ng o n th e p art i es , i n cl u di n g an y deci s i o n as t o th e al l o cat i o n o f t h e co s ts o f th e arb i t rat or i n th e arb i t rat i o n . If l i t ig at io n i s b ro u g htt o co n st ru e o r en fo rce t h i s Ag reem en t , th e p rev ai l i n g p art y s hal l b e en t i t l edt o reco ver at t o rn ey ’ s fees , as wel l as co u rtco s t s an dex p en s es , i n cl ud i ng t h e co sto f th e m ed i at i o n/ arb i t rat i on . (CR 9 0 .) In Ock er’ s v i ew, h e fi l ed“ l i t i g at i o n ... t o co n s t ru e o r en fo rce t h i s Ag reem en t ” wh en (am i d s t o f t h e p art i es ’ d is p u t es ab o u t craft in g a ju d i ci al d ecree t h atwo u l ds up ers ed e t h e M SA) h e o p p o s edEd d l em an ’ s m o t i on t o en fo rce t h e M SA as o ri g i n al l y

wri tt en , an dfi l edh i s o w n s u cces s fu l m ot i on t o req u i re
m ed i at i o n / arb it rat i o n o f t he d i sp u t es . Ock er s t at es rep eat ed l y

i n h i s b ri ef t h at aft er J u d g e Al cal a o rd ered
m ed i at i o n / arb it rat i o n , Ed d lem an(o r Ed d l em an ’ s co u ns el ) refu s ed t o co m p l y . ( S ee, e.g . , Ock er’ s Am . Br. at3 , 9 & 3 8 .) Ock er n ev er o ffers an y ev i d en ti ary

s up p o rt fro m th e reco rdfo r t h es e s tat em en t s, o nl y ci t at i o ns t o t h e s am e u n s up p ort ed al l eg at i o n s h e m ad e i n earl i er p l ead i n g s . Th e t ru t h (wh ich i s al s o o u t si d e t h e
reco rd ) i s t hatwh en th e p art i es ’ co u n s el co n ferreds h o rt l y aft er th e J u ne 2 5 h eari n g t o s eta d at e fo r t h e m ed i at i o n/ arb i trat i o n, Ock er’ s co u n s el s tat edth ath e

1 0was co m

p l et el y u n av ai l ab l e u nt i l Au g u s t1 9
. Co u n s el th en d is cu s s edAu g us t2 7 , b u tEd d l em an ’ s co u n s el res p o n d ed , aft er ch eck i n g wi t h Ed d l em an h ers el f, th at Ed d lem an was n o t av ai lab l e b ecau s e t h atd ay was atth e b eg i n n i n g o f t h e s ch o o l y ear fo r h ers el f an do t h er t each ers i n h er s ch o o l d i s t ri ct
. Ock er’ s co u n s el th en s u ed Ed d lem an o n Au g u s t 2 6 i n th e 3 1 9 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rt , al l eg i n g th ats h e was b reach i n g th e M SA b y

n o tex ch an gi n g t h e ch il dren i n Cam ero n (an db y at tach i n g
v ari o u s u n reas on ab l e co n di t i o n s t o m ed i at i o n/ arb i t rat i o n u n d er ¶ 1 0 o f t h e M SA). (CR 6 -8 .) Ag ai n , ev i d en ce o f t hes e effo rt s t o s et a m ed iat i o n d at e i s n o ti n the ap p el l at e reco rdo r g erm an e t o t h i s ap p eal , s o i ti s o d dthatOck er h as fel tth e n eed t o m ak e u n s up p o rt edaccu s at i o n s fro m o u t s i d e th e reco rdb l am i n g Ed d l em anfo r
n o tco m p l y i n g wi th J u d g e Al cal a’ s J u l y 1 0 o rd er. Th e Co u rtm

u s td i sreg ardth em . Des p i t e t h e p art ies ’ co nt i n u i n g i n ab il i ty t o m ed iat e/ arb i t rat e wi t h M i ch ael O’ Rei l l y p urs uan tt o J ud g e Al cal a’ s J u l y 1 0 o rd er, t h ey

wo rk edwi t h J ud g e Al cal a h i ms el f . He was ab l e t o i s s u e, wi t h b o t h p art i es ’ as s is t an ce, an o rd er i n No v em b er 2 0 1 3 that , atl o n g l as t , s up ers ed edth e M SA. (CR 2 0 4-3 2 .) He al so ad dres s ed Ock er’ s m o t i o n fo r fees an dco s t s , wh i ch h e h add ecl i n edt o ru l e o n i n t h e J u l y 1 0
o rd er, b y d en y in g th e m o t i o n wi t h o u tex p l an at io n . (CR 2 3 2 .)

1 1Ock er ap p eal edth e d en i al t o th i s Co u rti n 2 0 1 4 , 9 b u tth e p art ies l at er ag reed

t o arb i trat e “ t h e i s s u es cu rren t ly p en d i n g i n th e 1 3 t h Co u rto f Ap p eal s ” (CR 2 4 6 ) (al o n g wi t h the M SA b reach al l eg at io n s p en d i ng i n t h e 3 1 9 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rt ), s o t h i s Co u rtd i s m i s s edth e ap p eal . Hen ce, t h e p art i es ag reed t o l etthe a r bi tr a t o r , i n s t eado f t h i s Co u rt , d eci d e d e n o vo th e l eg al qu es t io n o f wh eth er ¶ 1 0 o f t h e M SA en t i t l edOck er t o an awardo f fees an dco s t s . Th e arb i t rat o r’ s am en d ed arb i t rat i on award(CR 3 0 4-0 8) ad dres sedth e 2 0 1 4 Ap p eal o n l y t o s t at e t h ati t
s h o u ldb e d i s m i ss ed 1 0

—h e d i dn o tex p l i ci tl y ad dres s th e fees / co s t s i s s u e, n o r d i d h e award Ock er an y

fees / co s ts fo r “ p rev ai l i ng ” o n th e “ l i t i g at i o n ” h e h adfi l edi n t h e 2 4 th Di s t ri ct Co u rt , i .e., o p p o s i n g Ed d l em an ’ s m o ti o n t o en fo rce t h e M SA as wri t ten , an d fi l i n g h i s o wnm o ti o n t o co m pel m ed i at i o n/ arb it rat i o n o f t h e d i s p u t es t h ath adari s en wh en h e t ri edt o i n jectn ew i s s ues i n t o th e M SA. Ho wev er, i n
res p o n s e t o a req u es t fo r ad d i t io n al fi n d i n g s o f fact an d co n cl u s i o n s o f l aw (CR 2 7 3 at ¶ 2 ), t h e arb i t rat o r s t at edth at h e res o l v edn o t h i n g fro m the 2 0 1 4 Ap p eal b ecau s e “ [a] tth e t i m e o f t h e arb i t rat i o n , ... th ere were n o p en d i n g i s s ues t o b e

9 In th e In t er es t

o f H.N.O. a n d

M.H.O. , No . 1 3 -1 4 -0 0 1 2 5-CV, 2 0 14 W L 3 5 4 1 8 0 3 (Tex . Ap p .-Co rp u s Ch ri s t i J ul y 1 7, 2 0 14 , n o p et .) (“ t h e 2 0 1 4 Ap p eal ”).

1 0 Wh en t h e arb i t rat o r ren d ered h i s o ri g i nal awardo n M ay 5 , 2 01 4 (CR 2 4 8
- 5 2 ), t h e 2 0 1 4 Ap p eal was s ti ll p en d i n g . By th e d at e o f h i s am en d ed awardo n Au g u s t1 5 , 2 0 1 4 (CR 3 0 4 -0 8 ), t h i s Co urth adal read y d is m i s s edth e ap p eal ( s ee s u p r a no t e 9 ), b u tth e arb it rat o r d i dn o trewri t e t h i s p o rt io n o f th e o ri g i n al award
. 1 2res o l ved .” (CR 2 7 9 at¶ 2
. 1 1 )
a . Ock er Di d No t Prev a i l i n the 2 0 1 4 Appea l J u d g e St i t h refu s edt o co n fi rm th e arb i t rat o r’ s d en i al o f Ock er’ s fees / co s t s fo r t h e “ l i t i g at i o n ” i n the 2 4 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rtb ecau s e, i n h i s v i ew, Ed d lem an ’ s ag reem en tt o arb i t rat e t h e ap p eal edi s s u e o f fees / co s t s m ean t t h at“ t h e rel i ef s o u g h t i n the 1 3 t h Co u rto f Ap p eal s h adb een acco m p l i s h ed .” (CR 4 2 3 -2 4 at¶ B.) Ock er’ s res p o n s e b ri ef d efen d s th atv i ew: “ Wh en EDDLEM AN, act i n g t h ro u g h h er at to rn ey , co nt ract edt o arb i t rat e t h e i s s ues p en d i n g i n the 1 3 t h Co u rto f Ap p eal s, t h e rel i ef OCKER s o u g h ti n th i s Ap p el l at e Co u rth adb een i n p art ach i ev ed....” (Ock er’ s Am . Br. at1 9 -2 0
. ) Th ati s en t i rel y

fal s e. Th e rel i ef Ock er s o u g h ti n th e 2 0 1 4 Ap p eal was fro m J u d g e Al cal a’ s o rd er d en y i n g h i s m o t i o n fo r fees an d co s t s . Hi s m o ti o n h adn o t
as k edJ u d g e Al cal a t o refer t h e m o t i o n t o m ed i at io n / arb i t rat io n , 1 2 s o th e rel i ef h e
s o u g hti n th i s Co urtco u l d n o ti n cl u d e s u ch a referral
. Ed dl em an ’ s ag reem en tt o

1 1 Ock er fi l edth is req u es tu n d er T E X . R. C I V . P. 2 98 , wh i ch req u i res tri al co u rt s t o s up p l y , up o n req u es t , fi n d i n gs an dco n cl u s i on s i n act io n s t ri edwi t h o u ta ju ry . Th e ru l e h as n o ap p l i cab i li t y t o arb i t rat i o n p ro ceed in g s , an di t i s n o tcl ear wh y th e arb i t rat o r fel tb ou n dt o rep l y , es p eci al ly s i n ce t h e p art i es ’ ag reem en tt o arb i t rat e wai v eda reco rd . (CR 2 4 7 at¶ 3 .)

1 2 Th e m o ti o n s ai d o n l y : “ M o v an t fu rth er req u es t s thatth e Co u rt awardh i m h i s at t o rn ey ’ s fees , co u rtco s ts an dex p en s es i n cl u d i n g th e co s to f m ed i at i o n / arb i t rat i on .” (CR 1 00 at¶ VI.)
1 3arb i t rat e t h e fees an dco s t s i n n o way h an d ed Ock er a v i ct o ry

o n wh i ch J u d g e St i t h
co u ldco n cl u d e th atOck er h adp rev ai l edi n th i s Co u rt
. Reg ard l es s o f wh et h er h e p rev ai l edi n t h e 2 0 1 4 Ap peal wh en Ed d l em an ag reed t o arb i t rat e i t s i ss u e o f fees an d co s t s , Ock er’ s b ri ef co m pl ai ns ab o u tth e arb i t rat o r’ s fai l u re t o ad dres s t h o s e fees an dco s ts . (Ock er’ s Am . Br. at1 6 -1 7 .) (As
n o t edab o v e, t h e arb i t rat o r fo u n dth atth ere were “ n o p en d i n g i s s u es t o b e
res o l ved ” i n th e 2 01 4 Ap peal (CR 2 7 9 at¶ 2
. )) Th at fi n di n g i s th e res u l to f Ock er’ s t o o -cl ev er-b y -h al f m an eu v eri n g . As Ock er ex p l ai n edt o t he arb i t rat o r i n
res p o n s e t o th e o ri g i n al arb i t ral award , the arb it rat i o n ag reem en t“ l i m i t edy o u r ju ri s d i ct i o n t o arb i t rat e i s s u es co n cern i n g an y l i t i g at i on i n t h e 1 3 t h Co u rto f Ap p eal s an d t h e 3 1 9 t h J u di ci al Di s tri ctCo u rt , ” an dd i dn oti n cl u d e au t h o ri t y o v er
an y i s s u es i n th e 2 4 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rt . (CR 3 6 8 .) Of co u rs e, th e i s su e i n th e 1 3 t h Co u rto f Ap p eal s wa s t h e i s s u e i n t h e 2 4 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rt : wh et h er ¶ 1 0 o f th e M SA en t i t l edOck er t o an awardo f fees an dco s t s . Bu tOck er h adi n s i st ed , s o th e arb i t rat o r’ s h an d s were t i ed , an dh e co n cl u d edi n h is am en d edawardth at h e h as n o au th ori ty

t o co m m en to n , cri t i qu e, o r i n an y way ch an ge an y Ord er ari s i n g o u to f t h e 2 4 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rto f Vi ct o ri a Co u n t y , Tex as . Fo r p urp os es o f t h i s Fi rs tAm en d edArb i t rat io n Award , th is Arb i t rat o r wi l l s i m

p l y as s u m e t h atal l Ord ers i s s ui n g o u t o f t h atCo u rt are t i m el y an dv al i d
. (CR 3 0 5 ; s ee a l

so CR 2 8 0 at ¶ 8 .)

1 4Th u s , Ock er’ s i n s i s t en ce creat edth e s am e p ro b l em as wi t h th e b reach o f
co n tract i s s u e ( s ee s u

p r a pag e 8 ): h e i n s i s t edt o t h e arb i t rat o r t h ath e co u l dn o t d eci d e a cert ai n i s s u e, o nl y t o fau ltth e arb i t rat o r n o w fo r n o t d eci d i n g t h e i s s u e. Wh at ev er t h e Co u rtm ay

th i n k o f t h e arb i t rat o r’ s d eci s i on th at “ t h ere were n o p en di n g i s s u es t o b e res o lv ed ” b ecau s e J u d g e Al cal a’ s ru l in g o n fees an dco s t s
was p res um edt o b e “ v al i d ” (CR 2 79 at¶ 2 ), i tm us tco n s i der t hatd eci s i o n i n l i g h t
o f t h e d i l emm a Ock er creat ed
. Bu twh at real l y

d o o m s Ock er’ s p o s it i on i s Bla ck , 4 4 3 S.W
. 3 dat1 6 9 (“ [j] u di ci al rev i ew o f an arb i trat i o n award‘ i s s o l i m i t edth atev en a m i s t ak e o f fact
o r l aw b y the arb i trat or i n the ap p l i cat i o n o f s ub s t an t i ve l aw i s n o ta p ro p er g ro u n d fo r v acat in g an award ’ ”) an ds i m i l ar cas es ( s ee Ed d l em an ’ s Br. at1 6 -1 7 ) h o l d i n g t h atth e co rrect n es s o f t h e arb i t rat o r’ s d eci s io n i s b ey o n dth e s co p e o f t h is ap p eal
. It is p at en to n th e face o f t h i s reco rdth atth e p art i es ’ ag reem en tt o arb i trat e i n cl u d ed“ t h e i s s u es cu rren tl y p en d i n g i n t h e 1 3 th Co u rt o f Ap peal s ” (CR 2 4 6 ),
an d t h os e i s s u es i ncl u d ed Ock er’ s m o t i o n fo r fees an dco s t s o n th e g ro u ndth ath e

“ p rev ai l [ed ] ” i n th e “ li t i g at i o n” b y g et t i ng th e J u l y 1 0 o rd er fro m J u d g e Al cal a
co m p el l i n g m ed i at i on an darb i t rat i o n . Th e arb i t rat or d eci d edth at t h e p res u m ed
v al i d i t y o f J u d g e Al cal a’ s d eci s i o n
— a p o i nto n wh i ch Ock er h adi n s i s t ed

—m ean t t h at“ t h ere were n o p en d i n g i ss u es t o b e res ol v ed , ” an dth ati s th e en do f t h i s p art

1 5o f t h e s t ory . Th e d i s t ri ctco urt s h o u l dn o th av e d en i edEd d l em an ’ s m o t i o n t o

co n fi rm th e arb i t rat o r’ s reject i o n o f t h i s cl ai m fo r fees an dco s t s . b. Ock er Di d No t Prev a i l i n the 3 1 9 th Di s tri ct Co urt Th e arb i t rat o r al s o h adb efo re h i m Ock er’ s o t h er cl ai m

fo r fees an dco s t s , wh i ch aro s e fro m t h e l i t i g at i o n i n 3 1 9 t h Di st ri ctCo u rt . Th atcl ai m was p rem i s ed
o n th e t h eo ry

th ath e p rev ai l edb y

g et t i ng J u dg e St i t h t o o rd er m ed i at i on / arb i t rat i on p u rs u an tt o ¶ 1 0 o f t h e M SA, an d t h ath e p rev ai l edag ai n s tEd d lem an
o n th e cl ai m

th ats h e b reach edth e M SA b y n o t ex ch an gi n g the ch i l dren i n Cam ero n aft er J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 13
. (CR 6 -7 .) Th e arb i t rat o r fo u n d t hatJ u d g e Al cal a d i dn o treq u i re co m p l i an ce wi t h th e M SA aft er J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 13 , s o n atu ral l y h e d i dn o tawardfees o n t h atb as i s . As we h av e al read y

s een , n o t h i n g i n Ock er’ s res po n s e b ri ef ex p l ai ns h o w the arb i t rat o r
ex ceed edh i s au th o ri t y

b y fo l l o wi n g J u d g e Al cal a; co n s eq u en t l y , n o t h in g i n Ock er’ s res p o n s e b ri ef ex p l ai n s h o w th e arb i t rat o r ex ceed edh i s au th o ri t y b y n o t award i n g fees / co s t s t o Ock er o n th i s i s s u e. It fo l l o w s th atJ u d g e St i t h erred i n d en y i n g co n fi rm at i o n o n th e g ro u n dth atth e fai lu re t o awardfee/ co s t s t o Ock er o n t h i s i s s u e s o m eh o w am o u nt edt o ex ceed in g t h e arb i trat o r’ s au t h o ri ty
. Th e arb i t rat o r d i dn o t ad dres s , an di m p li ci tl y d en i ed , Ock er’ s cl ai m

fo r fees
an d co s t s o n th e g ro u n dth ath e p rev ai l edb y g et t i n g J u d g e St i t h’ s o rd er

1 6co m

p el l i n g m ed i at i on / arb i t rat i o n . J u d g e St i t h , i n h i s l at er o rd er d en y i n g
co n fi rm at i o n , s eem s t o h av e b el i ev edth at g et t i n g s u ch an o rd er was s u ffi ci en t , 1 3 (CR 4 2 4 ), an dOck er’ s res p o ns e b ri ef d efen d s th atv i ew: Th e Arb i t rat o r h as ch o s en n o tt o ad dres s ... Ed dl em an ’ s fai l u re t o s ub m i tp re-d ecree d i sp u tes t o m ed i at io n an darb it rat i o n. Th e u n co n t ro v ert edreco rdrefl ect s th at[s h e] d i di n fact fai l t o co m p l y wi t h t hi s req u i rem en t u n t i l n o t o n e b uttwo Di s t ri ctJ u d ges o rd ered h er t o co m

p l y . Th e reco rdrefl ect s a s t ro ng i m p l i cat i o n th ati f t he Arb i t rat o r h ad co m

p li edwi th h i s co nt ract u al o b li g at i on t o co n s i d er t h i s al l eg ed b reach o f co n t ract , OCKER wo u l dh av e b een co n s i d ered t h e p rev ai l i ng p art y , an dth u s , en ti t ledt o h i s at t o rn ey ’ s fees . W e wi l l n o tkn o wfo r cert ai n , h o wev er, u n t i l aft er t h e Arb i trat o r co m pl ies wi t h J u d g e St i t h ’ s o rd er v acat i n g h i s arb i t rat i o n ru li n g, d i rect i n g h im t o rearb i t rat e i n co n fo rm i ty

wi t h th e J u d g e’ s ru l i n g . (Ock er’ s Br. at4 4 -4 5 .) Th e arg u m en ti s g ro u n dl es s . Th e p art i es ag reed t o arb i t rat e wi t h ou ta reco rd (CR 2 4 7 at¶ 3 ), s o t h e co u rt“ mu s t p res u m e ad eq u at e reas o ni n g an dev id en ce t o
s up p ortth e award ” (em

p h as i s ad d ed ). S CI Texa s Fu n er a l S er vs . , In c. v. Ro u s s et t , No . 1 3 -0 3 -2 9 5 -CV, 2 0 0 5 W L 7 4 26 5 4 , at* 1 (Tex . Ap p . -Co rp u s Ch ri s t i M ar. 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , n o p et .). S

ee a l s o In r e Gu a rdi a n s h i

p o f Ca n t u d e Vi l l a r r ea l , 3 30 S.W .3 d1 1, 2 4 (Tex . Ap p .-Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 2 0 1 0, n o p et ) (“ [w] h en th ere i s n o tran s cri p to f t h e arb i t rat i on h eari n g, as h ere, t he ap p el l at e co u rtwi l l p res u m e t h e ev i d en ce was

1 3 “ [T] h i s Co urt ... o rd ered[Ed d lem an ] t o m ed i at e an darb i t rat e d i sp u t ed i s su es reg ard i n g th e [M SA] y etth e Arb i t rat o r d i d n otru l e o n M o v an t[Ock er’ s ] co s t s an dd am ag es as m an d at edb y p arag rap h 1 0 o f t h e [M SA] .” (CR 4 2 4 .)
1 7ad eq uat e t o s up po rtth e award ”). Th i s i s n eces s ary b ecau s e, wi t h o u t a reco rd , i ti s
s i m p l y i m p o s s ib l e fo r a rev i ewi n g co u rtt o kn o w wh ati s s u es a p art l y actu al l y rai s eddu ri n g an arb i t rat i o n . Hen ce, i ti s i m p o rt an tt o p o i n to u tth atOck er, wh en h e
as k edth e arb i t rat o r t o am en dth e award o n th e g ro u n d t h ath e ex ceed edh i s
au t h o ri t y , f

a i l ed t o men t i o n th a t

h e b el ieved the a r b i tr a t o r h a d d o n e s o b y n o t
a wa rdi n g f ees a n d co s t s f o r p reva i l i n g i n th e 3 1 9 th Dis tr i ct Co u r t . (CR 3 71 .) An arb i t rat o r’ s d eci s i on o n an i s su e b ey on dth e s co p e o f t h e ag reem en t cl earl y
ex ceed s t h e arb i t rat o r’ s au t ho ri t y , b u tth e l acko f an ex p l ici td eci s io n o n an i s s u e wi t h i n th e s co p e o f t h e ag reem en tm ean s l i t t l e, i f an yt h in g . Fu rt her, i twas “ ad eq u at e reas o n i n g ” fo r t h e arb i t rat o r t o co n s tru e ¶ 1 0 t o
m ean th atfees an dco st s were award ab l e o n l y fo r p rev ai l i n g o n a s ub s t an t i v e d i s p u t e ab o u tth e i n t erp ret at i on an d/ o r p erfo rm an ce o f t h e M SA, n otfo r o b t ai n i ng ju s t an o rd er t o m ed i at e/ arb it rat e a s ub st an t i v e d i s p u t e. Oth erwi s e, a p art y wh o p rev ai l edo n l y

t o th e ex ten to f req ui ri ng m ed i at i o n/ arb i trat i o n wo u ldb e en t i t l edt o fees ev en i f thatp art y

l o s tthe s ub s eq u en t arb i t rat i o n an dp o s t -arb i t ral l i t i g at i o n : an
o u t co m e t h atwo u ldm ak e n o s en s e. Ed d l em an p o i n t edo u tth i s i n t erp ret at i o n o f ¶ 1 0 i n h er o ri g i n al b ri ef (Ed d l em an ’ s Br. at2 2 -2 3 ), an d n o th i n g i n Ock er’ s res p o n s e b ri ef en g ag es th e i s su e. In s t ead , Ock er’ s s p ecu l at i o n ab ou th i s ch an ces o f wi n n i n g , i n t he ab o v e1 8qu o t edp as s ag e fro m h i s b ri ef, d ep en d s en t i rel y up o n h i s o wni n t erp ret at i o n o f wh ati tm ean s t o b e a “ p rev ai li n g p art y ” u n der ¶ 1 0 , wi t h o u t ad m it t in g th e p o s s i b i l i ty

o f an ot h er an d m o re reas o n ab le i n t erp ret at i o n . Ock er’ s arg u m en t
co n trad i ct s S CI Texa s an d Gu a rdi a n s h ip , as ki n g th e Co urtt o as su m e t h atth e arb i t rat o r’ s reas o n i n g was n o tad eq u at e fo r d en y i n g th i s cl ai m fo r fees (i f h e p res s edi tb efo re t h e arb i t rat o r). Si n ce t h e arb i t rat or’ s reas o n i n g was ad eq u at e o n
an i s s u e t h atOck er co n t en ds was wi t h i n th e s co p e o f t h e arb i t rat i o n ag reem en t , th e arb i t rat o r cl earl y

d i dn otex ceed h i s au t h o ri ty
. C. The Mo ti on to Aba te o r Tra ns fer Venue Th e fi n al i s s u e i s wh et h er t h e arb i t rat o r ex ceed ed h i s au t h o ri t y b y ru l i n g o n Ed d lem an ’ s m ot i o n , i n th e 3 1 9 t h Di s t ri ctCo urt , t o tran s fer t h e v en u e o f Ock er’ s act i on t o Vi ct ori a Co u n ty . J u d ge St i t h b el iev edth at t h e m o t i o n was m o o t , an ds o t h e arb i t rat o r’ s ru l i n g ex ceed edh i s au t h o ri t y . (CR 4 2 3 at¶ A.) Ock er’ s res po n s e b ri ef d efen d s t h atv i ew, arg u i n g th at“ J ud g e St i th ’ s o rd er d i rect in g th e p art i es b ack t o m ed i at i o n an darb i t rat i o n was d i s p o si t i v e o f t h e M o t i o n t o Tran s fer Ven u e.” (Ock er’ s Am . Br. at3 3 .) Th atas s ert i o n i s far fro m accu rat e. As Ed dl em an p o in t edo uti n h er o ri g i n al b ri ef, aft er J u d g e St i th d ecl in edt o ru l e o n th e v en ue m o t i o n , th e arb i trat o r
co rrect ly s aw t h at d eci di n g i twas p arto f h i s du t y b ecau s e, wi th th e ex p ect at i o n

1 9t h atJ u d g e St it h wo u ldco nfi rm h is award , h e fo res aw t h atJ u d g e St i t h wo u l dth en t ran s fer t h e act i o n t o Vi ct ori a Co u n t y fo r co ll ect i o n o f t h e at t o rn ey ’ s fees award ed t o Ed dl em an . Th ati s , i n fact , p reci s el y th e ex p l an at i o n t h atth e arb i trat o r s t at edi n h i s res po n s e t o Ock er’ s req ues tfo r ad d i t i o n al fi n d in g s an dco n cl u s i o ns : 6
. SHERI EDDLEM AN was en t it l edt o h av e t h e p ro ceed i n g s i n t h e 3 1 9 t h Di s t ri ctCo u rtab at edb ecau s e th e cas e was b ro u g hti n t h e wro n g co u rt i n v i o l at i o n o f t h e ag reem en t o f th e p art i es co n t ai n ed i n th e [M SA]
.... 7
. As s t at ed ab o v e, t h e cas e was b ro u g h ti n t h e wro ng co u n t y .... Its h o ul d p ro p erl y

b e i n Vi ct o ri a Co u n t y . Ho w ev er, b as edup o n t h e d i sp o s i t i o n an dth e Arb i t rat i o n Awardth ere i s n o t h i n g t o t ran s fer t o Vi ct o ri a o t h er t h [a] n th e en t ry o f t he J u d g m en t fo r at t o rn ey ’ s fees g ran t edi n t h e Arb i t rat i o n Award
. (CR 2 7 9 -8 0 .) Th i s i s m ore t h an ad eq u at e reas o n in g t o s up p o rtth e arb i t rat or’ s d eci s i o n t o ru l e o n t h e m o t i o n t o ab at e o r t ran s fer v en u e o n t h e g ro u n d t h ati twas
n o tm o o t an dwas n o ti n ex ces s o f h i s au t h ori t y . Ock er’ s arg u m en t t o th e co n t rary
en t ai ls d i s reg ard i n g th e arb it rat o r’ s ex p l an at io n . Ock er al s o co m

pl ai n s , i n t h e s am e g en eral s ect i o n o f h i s b ri ef, t h atth e arb i t rat o r d i d n o t p ro p erl y cal cu l at e t h e fees an dco s t s t h ath e award edt o Ed d lem an fo r p rev ai l i n g o n th e m o t i o n t o ab at e o r t ran s fer v en u e. (Ock er’ s Am
. Br. at3 5 -3 6 .) J u d g e St i t h ’ s o rd er d en y in g co n fi rm at i o n (an dg ran ti n g v acatu r) d i d
n o ti n an y

way ad dres s t h e cal cu l at i o n o f th es e fees an dco s t s . Th i s i s co n s i s t en t wi t h th e fact th atOck er, i n h is m ot i o n t o v acat e t h e arb i t rat i o n award , d i dn o t

2 0arg u e t h atth es e fees an dco s t s h adb een cal cu l at edi m p ro p erl y ; h e o n l y

co n t en d ed t h atth ey were en t i rel y

i m pro per b ecau s e t h e arb i t rat o r “ m ad e n o ru l i n g s o r fi nd i ng s co n s i s t en twi th Tex as l aw t h at Sh erri Ed d l em an was the p rev ai l i n g p art y i n thi s l i t ig at i o n .” (CR 2 4 4
. ) Bu tev en i f Ock er’ s fai l ure t o arg u e t hi s p art i cu l ar erro r t o th e d i s t ri ctco u rt d o es no twai v e h i s ri g htt o d o s o n o w, h i s arg u m en th as n o m eri t . Th e at t o rn ey ’ s fee award rep res en t edo n l y wo rkth at o ccu rredi n co nn ect i o n wi t h th e l i t i g at i o n i n t h e 3 1 9t h Di s t ri ctCo urt , 1 4 wh ere (as th e arb i t rat o r ex pl ai n ed ) Ed d l em an p rev ai l ed
o n two i s s u es : (1 ) s he d efeat edOck er’ s cl ai m th ats h e v io lat edth e M SA b y n o t
ex ch an g i n g t h e ch i ld ren i n Cam ero n , an d(2 ) s h e p rev ai l edo n t h e v en u e i s s u e. (CR 2 7 9 at¶ 4 .) Bu t wi n n i n g o n th e m ot i o n t o tran s fer v en u e, acco rd i n g t o Ock er, d i dn o t qu al i fy

Ed d l em an fo r an award o f fees u n d er ¶ 1 0 b ecau s e i twas n o t a
m o ti o n “ t o co n s t ru e o r en fo rce t h e [M SA] .” (Ock er’ s Am
. Br. at3 6 .) An d b ecau s e t h e arb i t rat o r fai l ed t o s eg reg at e t h e fee award b y th e t w o i s s u es , Ock er b el i ev es t h ere i s a ri s k o f i t i m

p ro p erl y i n cl ud i n g am o u nt s fo r l i t i g at i ng th e v en u e i s s u e:

“ [t ] h e Arb i t rat o r d o es no td is t i ng u i s h i n h is awardo f at t o rn ey ’ s fees , h ow m u ch o f t h e at t orn ey ’ s fees h e award edare at t ri bu t ab le t o th is M ot i o n t o Tran sfer Ven u e,
s o th e en t i re awards h o u l db e s etas i d e.” (Ock er’ s Am . Br. at3 5 .)

1 4 “ [Ed d l em an ’ s co u n s el ’ s ] l et t er t o [t h e arb i t rat o r] ... requ es tedfees o n l y i n co n nect io n wi t h th e l it i g at i o n i n th e 3 1 9 t h J u d i ci al Di st ri ct .” (CR 3 7 4 at¶ 2 .)
2 1Th ati s an ab su rdarg u m en t . Th e M SA p ro v i d edth at i twas “ m ad e an d

p erfo rm ab l e i n Vi ct o ri a Co u nt y ” (CR 9 0 at¶ 9 ), a p ro v i s i o n cl earl y d es i g n edt o creat e v en u e i n Vi ct o ri a Co u n ty . Th erefo re, wh en Ock er s u edEd d l em an i n Nu eces Co u n t y , al l eg i n g th ats h e was v i o l at i n g th e M SA, h er m o t i o n t o ab at e o r t ran s fer t h atact i o n p l ai n l y

an ds i m p l y s o u g h tt o en fo rce ¶ 9 o f t h e M SA. Ock er ev en g o es s o far as t o s ay th at h i s s ui ti n Nu eces Co u n t y , al l eg i n g th at Ed d lem an was v i o lat in g the M SA, “ was n o ta l aws u itb ro u g h tt o en fo rce o r
co n st ru e t h e [M SA] , [b u t ] i twas a l aws u i ts eek i n g d am ag es fo r a b reach o f t h e [M SA] .” (Ock er’ s Am
. Br. at3 6 .) Co n s eq uen t l y , Ock er b el i ev es thato n ce ag ai n Ed d lem an d i dn o tp rev ai l o n en fo rcem en t o r co ns t ru al o f th e M SA wh en s he d efeat edth e cl ai m . Bu t h o wOck er co u l d p o s s i b l y h av e wo n d am ag es fo r b reach o f t h e M SA wi t h ou tthe 3 1 9 th Di s t ri ctCo u rtco ns t ru in g o r en fo rci n g th e M SA i s a qu es ti o n th atOck er’ s b ri ef d oes n o t ev en try t o an s wer. D. The Pro cedura l Po sture o f Thi s Appea l Ock er s t at es t h ati f Ed d lem an wi n s h er ap p eal o f t h e d en i al o f h er m o t i o n t o
co n fi rm th e arb i t rat i o n award , th en h er d eci s i o n n o tt o ap p eal th e g ran ti n g o f h is
m o ti o n fo r v acat u r “ w i l l creat e t h e u n fo rtu nat e ci rcu m st an ce wh ere t here wi l l b e t wo s ep arat e o ut co m es fro m th e s am e arb i t rat i o n .” (Ock er’ s Am
. Br. at6 .) Cl earl y , Ock er h as fai l edt o ap p reci at e— an dn o wh ere ad dres s es
— Ed d l em an ’ s d i s cu s s i on

2 2o f t h at v ery

i s s u e i n h er o ri g i n al b ri ef: Th e g ran t in g o f Ock er’ s m o t i o n t o v acat e i s n o tp res en t l y ap peal ab l e, b u tth at d o es n otp recl ud e Ed d l em an fro m ap p eal i n g t h e d en i al o f co n fi rm at i o n , n o r d o es i t p recl u d e th i s Co u rt fro m o rd eri n g co n fi rm at i o n . W

er l i n e v. E. Texa s S

a l t W a t er Dis p o s a l Co

. , 2 0 9 S.W
. 3 d8 8 8 (Tex . Ap p .-Tex ark an a 2 00 6 ), p res en t edex act l y th e s am e s cen ari o : d en i al o f co n fi rm at i o n , an dg ran t o f v acatu r wi t h an o rd er t o rearb i t rat e. Th e co u rto f ap p eal s h el dth atd en i al o f co n fi rm at i o n was ap p eal ab l e, an di t “ ren d er[ed ] ju d g m en tco n fi rm i n g t h e arb i t rat o r’ s award .” Id

. at9 0 1 . Th e Tex as Sup rem e Co u rtaffi rm ed . 3 0 7 S.W .3 d 2 6 7 (Tex
. 2 0 10 ). (Ed d l em an ’ s Br. at1 n .1 .) Th e Tex as Suprem e Co u rti n W er l in e s aw n o p ro b l em wi t h an ap p el l at e ju d g m en tth atco n fi rm edan arb i t rat i o n award , reg ard l es s o f t h e
n o n -ap p eal ab i l i t y

o f t h e v acat u r. Th e v acat u r i s n eces s ari l y i n co m p at i b l e wi t h th e
co n fi rm at i o n , an dcan n o t s urv iv e co nfi rm at i o n b y th e h i gh er co u rt . Ock er’ s
co n cern ab o utth i s i s su e h as n o m eri t
.

Co ncl us i o n a nd Pra y er fo r Rel i ef Th e Co u rt sh o u ld rev ers e t h e d en ial o f Ed d l em an ’ s m o t i o n t o co n fi rm t h e arb i t rat o r’ s am en d ed award , an d o rd er co n fi rm at io n o f t h e award i n i ts en t i ret y . Th e Co u rt s h o u l d al s o i ns t ru ct t he d i s t ri ct co u rt t hat aft er i t co n fi rm s t he am en ded award i n i t s en t i ret y , i t s h o ul d t ran s fer t h e act i o n t o t he 2 4 th D i s t ri ct Co u rt , Vi ct o ri a Co u n t y . On ce th ere, Ed d l em an wi l l be ab l e t o co l l ect t he fees an d co s t s s p eci fi ed i n t h e
co n fi rm ed award , an d wi ll b e ab l e t o m o v e fo r t h e ad d i t i o n al fees an d co s t s t h at s h e h as i n cu rred , i n t he d i s t ri ctco u rtan di n th i s Co u rt , i n o b t ai n i n g co n fi rm at io n .
2 3Dat e: Oct o b er 7 , 2 0 1 5 Res p ect fu l ly s ub m i t t ed , M A REK, GRIFFIN & KNAUPP Po s t Offi ce Bo x 2 3 2 9 2 0 3 N. Li bert y

St reet Vi ct o ri a, Tex as 7 7 9 0 2 (3 6 1 ) 5 73 -5 5 0 0 [t el ep h o n e] (3 6 1 ) 5 73 -5 0 4 0 [facs i m i l e] By : / s / Ro b er t E. McKn igh t, Jr

. ROBERT E. M cKNIGHT, J R. St at e Bar No
. 2 4 0 5 1 8 3 9 Ly nn A. Kn aup p Tex as Bar No . 1 1 5 8 7 9 0 0 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/ DEFENDANT, Sh eri Ed d lem an Certi fi ca te o f Co m pl i a nce Pu rs uan t t o T E X . R. A P P . P. 9 .4 (i )(3 ), I cert ify th at t h e n u m b er of wo rd s co n tai n ed i n t h i s co m

p u ter-g en er a t e d b ri ef, ex cl u d i n g th e p o rt i o n s l i s t ed i n Ru l e 9 .4 (i )(1 ), as co u n t ed b y t h e wo rd -p ro c e s s i n g p ro g ram wi t h wh i ch i t was prep ared (W ord Perfect X6 ), i s 5 ,8 7 2
. / s/ Ro b er t E. McKn igh t

, Jr

. ROBERT E. M cKNIGHT, J R.

2 4Certi fi ca te o f Serv ice

I cert i fy t h at t h e fo reg o i n g has b een s erv ed o n M at t h ew J
. Ock er b y el ect ro n i c s erv i ce t h ro u gh t h i s co un s el o f reco rd s h o wn b el o w, o n t h i s 7 th day of Oct o b er, 2 0 1 5. W i l l i am J . Kel l y 1 4 0 2 N. Ch ap arral Co rp u s Ch ri s t i, TX 7 8 4 0 1 ju dy @ bi l l k el l y o n l i n e.co m

/ s/ Ro b er t E. McKn igh t

, Jr

. Ro b ertE. M cKn i g h t , J r.

2 5