Opinion ID: 2585937
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ruling on Kinn and Singletary's appeal

Text: In October 2003 Kinn and Singletary appealed the judgment of the arbitrator to the superior court, alleging that Davis had exceeded his powers by rescinding the real estate contract, had displayed evident partiality, and had exhibited a manifest disregard of the law in his decision. Alaska Sales and Service moved for confirmation of the arbitration award. In May 2004, after oral argument, the superior court issued a ruling from the bench confirming the award. The court held that the rescission was within the arbitrator's authority, stating that I . . . don't find merit to the defendants' argument that the arbitrator could not rescind only the contract for the sale of real property and leave the asset purchase agreement in place. The court also determined that Davis and Bankston did not have the type of relationship that required disclosure to the parties and emphasized that the vast majority of cases that have discussed whether there is evident partiality are concerned with th[e] financial interest that parties couldthat the parties might have or the lawyers might have with the arbiter. In addition, the court observed that this is a small legal community, [and] that you do tend to cross paths with just about everyone during the course of practicing here for decades at a time as Mr. Davis has done. Concluding that there was no indication in the record that Mr. Davis had any interest, financial, personal or otherwise in the outcome of the dispute here, the court held that there was no evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator.