Opinion ID: 2329576
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of the motion for judgment

Text: The Superior Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for judgment and vacated the decision of the Commission on two bases. The first of these was that the motion for judgment did not state the relationship between the five named defendants and CCA. Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c) provides in pertinent part: A copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes. See Foshee v. Daoust Const. Co., 185 F.2d 23, 25 (7th Cir.1950); cf. Casco Bank & Trust Co. v. Rush, 348 A.2d 239 (Me.1975). In paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs' motion for judgment the Commission's award and determination is referred to and incorporated via an attachment to the motion identified as Exhibit A. The Commission's award and determination lists in paragraph 1 as officers and members of CCA the five individuals named as Defendants in the Plaintiffs' motion for judgment. Because this clearly identifies the relationship between the named Defendants and CCA, the Superior Court erred in vacating the Commission's award and determination and denying the motion for judgment on the basis that this relationship was not established by the pleadings. The second ground on which the Superior Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the Commission's award and determination was that CCA, an unincorporated association, had no capacity to appear before the Panel and therefore, the Panel's action on the petition below was a nullity. (citations omitted). The record discloses that the Commission asked the parties to the arbitration proceeding to file memoranda addressing the issue of whether CCA had standing to petition. Although the Commission made no specific finding as to CCA's capacity to sue, in issuing the award and determination the Commission implicitly decided CCA did have standing. In bargaining for an arbitrator's decision, the parties bargain for the arbitrator's interpretation of the law as well. Bd. of Directors of Maine S.A.D. No. 33 v. Teachers' Assoc. of Maine S.A.D. No. 33, 395 A.2d 461, 463 (Me.1978). A reviewing court is not empowered to overturn an arbitration award merely because it believes that sound legal principles were not applied. Id.; Boyte v. Dickson, 62 N.C.App. 682, 303 S.E.2d 418, 421 (1983); see Granite State Ins. Co. v. Dundas, 34 Colo.App. 382, 528 P.2d 961 (1974). Although 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938(1)(C) (1980) provides that a court may vacate an arbitration award where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, for arbitrators to make an error of law is not to exceed their powers. Id. Nor was the Superior Court compelled to refuse to grant the motion on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction due to CCA's lack of capacity to sue. An unincorporated association's lack of capacity to sue does not void a judgment since it merely constitutes a procedural irregularity. Royal Coachman Color Guard v. Marine Trading & Transportation, Inc., 398 A.2d 382, 384 n. 3 (Me.1979). Therefore, we conclude that even if the Commission's implicit holding that CCA had the capacity to sue was erroneous, since it constituted merely a procedural irregularity and because of the limited scope of review of arbitration awards afforded the courts, see 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938 (1980), it was error to vacate on those grounds.