Court Opinion

ID: 9524309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:51:43.014318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:30.873274
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The arbitrators found the damages were $497,925. That is the amount Miller should be required to pay David Company. Instead of requiring Miller to pay that amount, the arbitrators are requiring Miller to pay $884,476, which is $386,551 more than the damages, and then Miller is to receive David Company’s property. I find the arbitrators acted within their broad discretionary powers in computing damages, but find no reason for the additional step of the property transfer.
The record does not disclose that the parties agreed to this form of disposition, nor does it disclose that the property is worth precisely $386,551. If Miller nets more than that from the sale, Miller will have a windfall. If Miller nets less than that from the sale, David Company will have a windfall. The amount of the potential windfall is subject to several variables, *596including but not limited to market conditions, the limited pool of buyers for partially completed rental property, incidental expenses of holding for sale such as debt service, utilities, additional work, realtors’ fees, et cetera. The net from the sale cannot be predicted with any accuracy. I find no reason to expose either side to the unknown of a property transfer. Since the arbitrators found a specific amount of damages, that is the amount the winning party should receive and the losing party should pay.
I do not reach appellant’s argument that the award violates the statute of frauds. I would decide the case solely on the issue that the award fashioned by the arbitrators, being subject to so many variables outside the record, excluded the scope of their power.
Since the arbitrators found $497,925 in damages, that, and that alone, is' the amount appellant should pay respondent.