Opinion ID: 2585937
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Method of tendering the rescission deed

Text: Alaska Sales and Service alleges that the portion of the arbitrator's award specifying how the deed of rescission is to be tendered was ambiguous, and that the superior court erred by choosing a particular method of tender. The superior court's revised final judgment states that once [d]efendants, or any individual or combination of [d]efendants, have partially satisfied this judgment by paying [the purchase price minus accrued rents], Alaska Sales shall execute a warranty deed conveying title to the defendant or defendants who paid this judgment for the two parcels of real property. The relevant portion of Davis's decision stated that [t]he property must be deeded back to [Kinn and Singletary] by warranty deed, and ordered Kinn and Singletary to repay the plaintiffs the purchase price of the property. [60] In the summary of all awards, the arbitrator commented in a footnote that, until there is a closing for the return of the property, and the amounts awarded to [Alaska Sales and Service] are paid, interest will continue to accrue at the rates I awarded. [61] Alaska Sales and Service claims that this is ambiguous because it does not indicate whether the entire award must be paid at the time of the closing, or just the purchase price of the property. But this footnote actually draws a distinction between the closing and the payment of interest on remaining unpaid sums. For this reason, the language of the arbitration award was not ambiguous, and remand is not necessary for the proper enforcement of the award. [62] Since the superior court's order does not differ materially from the arbitrator's order with regard to the method of tender, we affirm the judgment of the superior court on this issue.