Ii. [§ 2.35] Enforcement of Arbitration Awards

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

II. [§ 2.35] ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AWARDS

John Smith is a building contractor who operates in Baltimore City. In September 2021, George Harris contracted with John Smith for the construction of a new car sales and service facility. Prior to the completion of the contract, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the roof of the service station and certain duct work installed upon it. The parties agreed to submit the matter to arbitration for resolution of the dispute. In March 2022, the arbitrator found for John Smith and awarded $50,000 in damages. John Smith requested that the court confirm the award of the arbitrator and enter judgment against George Harris.

PETITION

Petition to Confirm and Enforce Arbitrator's Award

Petitioner, John Smith (hereinafter "Smith"), by his attorneys, Tyreke P. Brown and Brown & Brown, P.A., pursuant to Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code §§ 3-202, 3-206, 3-227, and 3-228, petitions this Honorable Court to confirm and enter judgment upon an Arbitration Award against the Respondent, George Harris (hereinafter "Harris"), and states as follows:

1. Petitioner Smith is a resident of Baltimore City, who resides at 1235 Main Street, Baltimore City, Maryland 22100. Petitioner Smith is engaged in the business of building construction in Baltimore City, Maryland.

2. Respondent Harris is an individual residing at 15 Red Road, Baltimore City, Maryland 21201. Harris is the owner and operator of an automobile sales and service center in Baltimore City, Maryland.

3. On or about September 1, 2021, Petitioner Smith entered into a Contract with Harris whereby Petitioner Smith agreed to furnish labor and materials necessary to construct an automobile sales and service facility for Respondent Harris.

4. Prior to completion of the Contract, a dispute arose between Petitioner Smith and Harris regarding the roof of the service facility and certain duct work installed upon it.

5. On or about January 1, 2022, Petitioner Smith and Harris agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration, pursuant to the provisions of the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act, §§ 3-201 through 3-234 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.

6. On or about March 1, 2022, the matter under dispute between Petitioner Smith and Harris was heard before an arbitrator. The Arbitrator found in favor of Petitioner Smith and awarded damages to Petitioner Smith against Harris in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000). A genuine and authentic copy of the Arbitrator's Findings and Award are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.

7. Harris has failed to file an application to vacate, modify, or correct the award within the time limits provided in §§ 3-222 and 3-223 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Act.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner Smith demands that this Honorable Court:

A. Order that the Award of the Arbitrator, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, be confirmed in favor of Petitioner Smith and against Harris in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000).

B. Enter Judgment in favor of Petitioner Smith against Harris in conformity with this Court's Order.

C. Award such other and further relief as the nature of his cause may require.

Respectfully submitted,

__________
Tyreke P. Brown
AIS No. 0123456789
Brown & Brown, P.A.
Transamerica Building
100 Light Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: (410) 555-1234
Fax: (410) 555-1235
Email: TPBrown@BrownLaw.com

Attorneys for Petitioner

COMMENT

Written arbitration agreements entered into under the laws of Maryland generally are governed by the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act. Cts. & Jud. Proc. I §§ 3-201-3-234; Md. Rule 15-101; see also Coleman v. Columbia Credit Co., 42 Md. App. 198, 399 A.2d 943 (1979). If affecting interstate commerce, they also may be subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16. Case Handyman & Remodeling Servs., LLC v. Schuele, 183 Md. App. 44, 54, 959 A.3d 833, 840 (2008) (citing Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 386 Md. 412, 872 A.2d 735 (2005)), vacated on other grounds, Schuele v. Case Handyman & Remodeling Servs., LLC, 412 Md. 555, 989 A.2d 210 (2010).

Pursuant to § 3-202 of the Uniform Arbitration Act, an agreement providing for arbitration confers jurisdiction on the court to enforce the agreement and enter judgment on an arbitration award. Cts. & Jud. Proc. I § 3-202; Bel Pre Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc., 21 Md. App. 307, 320 A.2d 558 (1974) (noting that the statute is "a radical departure from the common law"). However, as previously noted, the Uniform Arbitration Act does not apply to...