AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between Porto Plumbing LLC (Plaintiff-Appellee) and Next Level Plumbing Corp. along with Mark E. Baker (Defendant-Appellant) concerning an arbitration award related to an asset purchase agreement accompanied by a promissory note and security agreement. The parties had disagreements over the execution of the agreement and note, leading to arbitration as per their agreement.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Shannon C. Bacon, District Judge, confirming an arbitration award in favor of Porto Plumbing LLC against Mark E. Baker.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the final arbitration award did not comply with the arbitration agreement’s requirement for the award to be accompanied by a written opinion setting forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law relied upon in reaching the decision. The appellant pointed to the award’s statement that it does not constitute findings of fact or conclusions of law.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the final arbitration award complied with the arbitration agreement’s requirement that an award be accompanied by a written opinion setting forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law relied upon in reaching the decision.

Disposition

• The district court’s order confirming the arbitration award and judgment in favor of Porto Plumbing LLC was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with concurrence from Roderick T. Kennedy and Stephen G. French, the court addressed the sole issue of whether the arbitration award complied with the arbitration agreement's requirement for a written opinion with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Despite the arbitrator's introductory recitation suggesting the decision did not constitute findings of fact or conclusions of law, the court determined that the substance of the arbitration award did indeed set forth detailed factual findings and legal conclusions. These included findings regarding the execution of the asset purchase agreement, the parties’ conduct, and conclusions on the perfection of interest in collateral, default on obligations, and the failure of Defendants to prove counterclaims. The court emphasized that the form of the award, despite its initial disclaimer, contained the necessary findings and conclusions as required by the arbitration agreement, thus upholding the district court's confirmation of the award (paras 1-7).