Van Duren v. Rzasa-Ormes
394 N.J. Super. 254, 926 A.2d 372 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-appealability clause in an arbitration agreement between sophisticated, represented parties is enforceable to preclude appellate court review of a trial court's judgment confirming or vacating an arbitration award. However, such a clause is void as against public policy to the extent it attempts to eliminate all initial judicial review at the trial court level.
Facts:
- In 1998, a dispute arose between business partners Raymond Van Duren and Leigh Rzasa-Ormes over their jointly owned automobile dealerships and related real estate holdings.
- After negotiations with corporate counsel failed, both parties retained separate counsel.
- On April 11, 2000, the parties executed a 'Binding Arbitration Agreement' appointing Conrad Roncati, Sr., a person known to both, as the arbitrator to divide their business interests.
- The agreement contained a 'Finality' section stating the arbitrator's award 'shall be final, binding and conclusive, and not subject to an appeal to any authority in any forum.'
- The arbitration spanned five years, during which interim awards were issued that began dividing the dealerships, with each party taking exclusive ownership of certain entities.
- During the lengthy arbitration, Rzasa-Ormes developed concerns about the arbitrator's impartiality, partly because she filed an unrelated lawsuit against the arbitrator's son.
- The arbitration concluded with a final award on June 21, 2005, which finalized the division of all remaining business assets.
Procedural Posture:
- Following an interim arbitration award, Plaintiff Raymond Van Duren moved to confirm the award in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, while Defendant Leigh Rzasa-Ormes cross-moved to vacate it. The court dismissed both motions as premature.
- Rzasa-Ormes subsequently filed a separate suit in the Chancery Division to remove the arbitrator, which was dismissed without prejudice.
- After the final arbitration award was issued on June 21, 2005, Van Duren filed a summary action in the Chancery Division to confirm the award.
- Rzasa-Ormes moved to vacate the award, arguing arbitrator bias and that the agreement's non-appealability clause was void as against public policy.
- On November 23, 2005, the Chancery Division judge confirmed the arbitration award, rejecting Rzasa-Ormes's claims.
- Rzasa-Ormes (defendant-appellant) appealed the Chancery Division's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, with Van Duren as the plaintiff-respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a clause in an arbitration agreement stating that the award is 'not subject to an appeal to any authority in any forum' validly preclude an appeal from a trial court's order confirming the award?
Opinions:
Majority - Parrillo, J.A.D.
Yes, a clause in an arbitration agreement that clearly and unequivocally waives the right to appeal from a trial court's judgment is enforceable. The court held that while parties cannot contractually eliminate all judicial review of an arbitration award, they can waive their right to appellate review. The court distinguished between a clause that bars initial trial-level review (which is void as against public policy) and one that bars a second layer of review at the appellate level (which is enforceable). The court reasoned that public policy requires trial courts to retain their statutory power under N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8 to vacate awards for fraud, corruption, or bias. However, once that meaningful initial review has occurred, enforcing a waiver of further appeal upholds the public policy of promoting finality in arbitration. Because Rzasa-Ormes received a full and fair hearing on her claims of bias at the trial court level (Chancery Division), her prior agreement to waive any further appeal was binding. Therefore, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important precedent in New Jersey regarding the enforceability of non-appealability clauses in arbitration agreements. It creates a severability framework, holding that clauses purporting to eliminate all judicial review are partially void but can be enforced to the extent they waive only appellate review. This balances the strong public policy favoring finality and efficiency in arbitration with the necessity of preserving a minimum level of judicial oversight to guard against arbitrator misconduct. The ruling provides clarity for sophisticated commercial parties, allowing them to contract for an expedited dispute resolution process with a single level of judicial review, thereby trading the security of appellate review for the benefit of finality.
