Opinion ID: 2632547
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: when the Award was served on PBS thereby triggering the time limit for a motion to vacate

Text: PBS contends that the Award was never delivered within the meaning of the statute because it was not delivered personally or by registered or certified mail, pursuant to the requirements of HRS § 658-8. Schmidt contends that the statute does not require such delivery and that the original Award was in fact delivered to each of the parties. HRS § 658-8 states that,  [t]he award shall be . . . delivered to one of the parties or the party's attorney. A copy of the award shall be served by the arbitrators on each of the other parties to the arbitration, personally or by registered or certified mail. (Emphases added.) Based on its plain language, the statute clearly contemplates that only one original of the award is prepared and served upon one of the parties; all other parties are served with a copy of the original award. The statute also clearly states that the arbitrator may serve copies of the award personally or by registered or certified mail. The statute, however, states only that [t]he award [( i.e., the original)] shall be . . . delivered to one of the parties or the party's attorney. Thus, if this court were to follow the circuit court's ruling that ordinary mailing constitutes delivery under the statute, then the requirements for service of the original would be less stringent than the requirements for service of a copy, which is absurd. See AOAO of Maalaea Kai, Inc. v. Stillson, 108 Hawai`i 2, 27, 116 P.3d 644, 669 (2005) (applying the rule that, because the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, legislation should be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality) (citation omitted)). Consequently, the reference to delivered can only mean personal or hand delivery of the original of the award. Here, the record does not indicate whether the Award that was mailed to PBS was an original or a copy. In either case, ordinary mailing would not have satisfied the statutory service requirements. Nevertheless, the purpose of the statute  that is, to ensure that the parties actually receive the arbitrator's written decision  was met. At no time did PBS's counsel claim that he did not receive the arbitrator's written decision. In fact, he confirmed his receipt thereof at the February 13, 2003 hearing, as evinced by the following portion of the transcript: [PBS's Counsel]: Okay. If the copy, I mean if the award, the original of the award, presumably, the original, if the original award is delivered to me,  THE COURT: Which it was. [PBS's Counsel]: No, it wasn't. It was mailed. THE COURT: All right. Moreover, as previously noted, PBS's counsel declared that, when he received the unacknowledged award, he did not take any action. Thus, the record indicates that PBS and its counsel did, in fact, receive either the original or a copy of the arbitrator's written award; however, the date upon which service was perfected is unclear. As previously indicated, Schmidt's counsel indicated that he received the Award on November 26, 2002, the day after it was issued. Thus, the circuit court assumed that PBS received the Award on the same day as Schmidt and concluded that the ten-day statutory time to file a motion to vacate expired on December 9, 2002. [9] The circuit court ruled that PBS's motion, filed on January 22, 2003, was untimely. Even assuming arguendo that PBS never received the Award through ordinary mail service, it is undisputed that PBS received a copy of the Award, at the latest, on December 9, 2002, as evinced by the certificate of service attached to Schmidt's motion to confirm, which was served on that date, and to which a true and correct copy of the Award was attached as Exhibit B. Thus, even if the circuit court had given the benefit of the doubt to PBS and utilized December 9, 2002 as the triggering date, PBS's motion would had to have been filed by December 19, 2002; PBS did not file its motion to vacate until over one month later on January 22, 2003. Therefore, as the facts illustrate, PBS did not take appropriate action to preserve its right to appeal. Had PBS's counsel immediately moved to vacate the Award or requested that the arbitrator acknowledge the Award rather than waiting for Schmidt to do so, PBS could have preserved its right to move to vacate the Award. Instead, PBS decided to take no action following receipt of the Award even though it assumed that acknowledgment was required and did not question the authenticity of the arbitrator's signature on the Award. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in concluding that PBS's motion to vacate filed on January 22, 2003, was untimely, and that this court is without jurisdiction to review the Award.