Opinion ID: 1504729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Impartiality of arbitrators

Text: In her final point for reversal, Ms. Lancaster argues that she was deprived of a valuable property right without due process and by undue means because the arbitrators were not impartial, the notices given to her were insufficient and confusing, and she was extended no right to counsel or to call witnesses. The question of notice has been disposed of earlier. Regarding the alleged partiality of the board, the party attempting to set aside the award on such a basis bears the burden of proof. Chrobak v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 46 Ark.App. 105, 878 S.W.2d 760 (1994). Apart from Ms. Lancaster's assertion in her brief that it was her belief that certain arbitration panel members were not impartial, no testimony was presented to demonstrate in what way partiality was shown. The interest, partiality, or bias that will suffice to overturn an arbitration award must be certain and direct rather than remote, uncertain, or speculative. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Deislinger, supra . Finally, with respect to Ms. Lancaster's contention that she was denied the right to counsel and to call witnesses, the record reveals that the Official Notice of Hearing (Arbitration)to which she responded on August 1, 1991explicitly provided that [e]ither party may be represented by legal counsel and that [e]ach party shall arrange for his witnesses to be present at the time and place designated. We hold that the chancery court did not commit reversible error. Affirmed. ROAF, J., not participating.