IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00325-CV

RR PRINCE RANCH SWD LTD.,

Appellant

v.

WILLIAM O. WILEY, SHIRLEY WILEY AND 

WILLIAM O. WILEY D/B/A WEN-BE,

Appellees

From the 369th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court No. NOT-14-12

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RR Prince Ranch SWD Limited appeals from a judgment that confirmed an 

arbitration award and denied its motion to set aside the arbitration award. RR Prince 

Ranch complains that the trial court erred by denying its motion to set aside the 

arbitration award because the arbitration panel exceeded its authority by disregarding 

the law of contract construction and because the arbitration panel refused to hear 

evidence material to the controversy. Because we find that the trial court did not err, 
RR Prince Ranch SWD LTD. v. Wiley Page 2

we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

RR Prince Ranch and William O. Wiley, Shirley Wiley, and William O. Wiley 

d/b/a Wen-Be entered into a contract whereby the Wileys became limited partners in a 

partnership created for the purpose of drilling a well for disposing of saltwater. The 

partnership agreement contained an agreement not to compete, which is the primary 

provision at issue in this proceeding. William Wiley, doing business as Wen-Be, drilled 

his own saltwater disposal well approximately one mile from the RR Prince Ranch well. 

RR Prince Ranch filed a lawsuit against the Wileys for violating the agreement not to 

compete and sought damages for the violation. The parties agreed to submit the 

proceeding to binding arbitration.

After the arbitration, the panel of arbitrators found that the agreement not to 

compete was ambiguous, and found in favor of the Wileys. The arbitration panel made 

a finding that the Wileys did not violate the agreement and awarded attorney’s fees and 

costs to the Wileys. RR Prince Ranch filed a motion with the trial court to vacate the 

arbitration award and the Wileys filed a motion to confirm the award and for entry of 

judgment. After hearing arguments by counsel, the trial court denied the motion to 

vacate, granted the Wileys’ motion, and entered a final judgment confirming the 

arbitration award.

Denial of Motion to Vacate

In its first issue, RR Prince Ranch complains that the trial court erred by 
RR Prince Ranch SWD LTD. v. Wiley Page 3

confirming the arbitration award because the decision of the arbitrators exceeded their 

authority by disregarding the law. RR Prince Ranch argues that the decision exceeded 

the authority of the arbitrators because their findings constituted a gross mistake and 

manifest disregard of the law because the language of the agreement not to compete 

was not ambiguous and the contract as a whole required a different result. 

We review a trial court's decision to vacate or confirm an arbitration award de 

novo based on a review of the entire record. Humitech Dev. Corp. v. Perlman, 424 S.W.3d 

782, 790 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.). An arbitration award is presumed valid. Id. 

All reasonable presumptions are indulged to uphold the arbitrators’ decision, and none 

are indulged against it. Ancor Holdings, LLC v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, Inc., 294 

S.W.3d 818, 826 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); Statewide Remodeling, Inc. v. Williams, 

244 S.W.3d 564, 568 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) The party seeking to vacate the 

award has the burden of proving grounds for vacatur exist. Roehrs v. FSI Holdings, Inc., 

246 S.W.3d 796, 804 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied).

RR Prince Ranch’s argument is couched in terms of whether the arbitrators 

exceeded their authority; however, its argument is really a complaint that the 

arbitrators committed an error of law. A complaint that the arbitrators decided an issue 

incorrectly or made a mistake of law is not a complaint that the arbitrators exceeded 

their powers. Centex/Vestal v. Friendship West Baptist Church, 314 S.W.3d 677, 686 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied); see Pheng Invs., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 196 S.W.3d 322, 329 
RR Prince Ranch SWD LTD. v. Wiley Page 4

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.). A reviewing court is not at liberty to substitute 

its judgment for that of the arbitrators merely because it might have reached a different 

decision. Statewide Remodeling, 244 S.W.3d at 568. Further, because our review is so 

limited, we may not vacate an award even if it was based upon a mistake in law. 

Humitech Dev. Corp., 424 S.W.3d at 790; Centex/Vestal, 314 S.W.3d at 683; Royce Homes, 

L.P. v. Bates, 315 S.W.3d 77, 85 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). Even if 

we were to determine that the arbitrators made a mistake of law by finding the 

agreement was ambiguous, we do not find that the arbitrators exceeded their authority. 

We overrule issue one.

Failure to Hear Additional Evidence

In its second issue, RR Prince Ranch complains that the trial court erred by not 

vacating the arbitration award because the arbitrators refused to hear additional 

evidence regarding intent of the parties. RR Prince Ranch contends that when it found 

out that the arbitrators determined that the agreement was ambiguous, it should have 

allowed RR Prince Ranch to present additional evidence of the intent of the parties. No 

record was made of the proceedings before the arbitrators. RR Prince Ranch argues that 

a record was not necessary for this Court to determine that the arbitrators refused to 

hear additional evidence after it issued its decision in favor of the Wileys. The Wileys 

contend that because there is no record of the proceedings, we are unable to properly 

review this complaint because evidence was presented at the arbitration regarding 
RR Prince Ranch SWD LTD. v. Wiley Page 5

intent. 

A party seeking to vacate an arbitration award bears the burden of bringing 

forward a sufficient record establishing a basis for vacating the award. In re Chestnut 

Energy Partners, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 386, 400 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied); 

Statewide Remodeling, 244 S.W.3d at 567. In the absence of a complete record, we must 

presume the arbitration evidence adequately supported the award. Statewide 

Remodeling, 244 S.W.3d at 567. Because an adequate record is not before us, we cannot 

say that the arbitrators erroneously refused to consider additional evidence not 

presented during the arbitration. Additionally, we cannot determine whether or not the 

additional evidence would have been relevant because RR Prince Ranch did not make 

the trial court aware of the substance of the additional evidence it wished to present. 

We overrule issue two.

Conclusion

Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed June 18, 2015

[CV06]