{
  "id": 9249791,
  "name": "DENISE VANHOY, Plaintiff v. DUNCAN CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant; AND DUNCAN CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. DENISE VANHOY, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vanhoy v. Duncan Contractors, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "2002-10-01",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-1464",
  "first_page": "320",
  "last_page": "322",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. App. 320"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "333 N.C. App. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "153"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.11",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 S.E.2d 189",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1958,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "195"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 N.C. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625390
      ],
      "year": 1958,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "625"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/248/0617-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 S.E.2d 414",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "420",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Poe & Sons, Inc. v. University, 248 N.C. 617, 625, 104 S.E.2d 189, 195 (1958)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 N.C. App. 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549584
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "415",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Poe & Sons, Inc. v. University, 248 N.C. 617, 625, 104 S.E.2d 189, 195 (1958)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/41/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "423 S.E.2d 747",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "750"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 N.C. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2550326
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/333/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.10",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 363,
    "char_count": 6855,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.749773056266987
    },
    "sha256": "b7a83942600bf8c0d0effc55ddd9c911be46e5d48e157e29a80dcd4f0d3b105e",
    "simhash": "1:b97a7fc9a0df257b",
    "word_count": 1090
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:17:05.865609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and BIGGS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DENISE VANHOY, Plaintiff v. DUNCAN CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant AND DUNCAN CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. DENISE VANHOY, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nUnder the Uniform Arbitration Act, there is no authority for an arbitrator or court to award attorney\u2019s fees after an original award is made. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.10; \u00a7 1-567.13(a); \u00a7 1-567.14; Nucor Corp. v. General Bearing Corp., 333 N.C. 148, 423 S.E.2d 747 (1992). In this case, the arbitrator issued an award on 6 April 2001 providing that each party would be responsible for its own attorney fees; thereafter on 17 May 2001, the arbitrator issued a modified award granting Plaintiff $30,000 in attorney\u2019s fees. Because the Uniform Arbitration Act does not grant an arbitrator the authority to modify an existing award to provide for attorney\u2019s fees, we uphold Superior Court Judge Clarence Horton\u2019s order vacating the modified award.\nThe facts pertinent to the resolution of this appeal are that on 6 April 2001, an arbitrator issued an award in favor of plaintiff but concluded that \u201ceach party is responsible for their own attorney\u2019s fees.\u201d\nHowever, the construction contract underlying the arbitrated dispute provided that the prevailing party in an arbitration proceeding would be entitled to attorney\u2019s fees.\n15. Arbitration of Disputes. . . . The party against whom the award is rendered shall pay the cost and expense of the arbitration, including without limitation any filing fees paid by the other party and the other party\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees and costs as set forth below.\n18. Attorney\u2019s Fees. Should either party employ an attorney to institute suit or demand arbitration to enforce any of the provisions hereof, to protect its interest in any matter arising under this agreement, . . . the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney\u2019s fees, cost, charges, and expenses expended or incurred therein.\nThus, following the issuance of the original award, plaintiff requested the arbitrator modify the award to correct \u201cclerical, typographical, technical or computational errors.\u201d In response, on 17 May 2001, the arbitrator issued a modified award granting plaintiff $30,000 in attorney\u2019s fees. From the trial court\u2019s order vacating the arbitrator\u2019s modified award and confirming the original award, plaintiff appeals.\nOn appeal, plaintiff contends that because \u201carbitrators have the same powers as the court to modify or correct an award which is inconsistent with the parties\u2019 contract\u201d, the trial court erred by holding that the arbitrator did not have the authority to modify the original award to grant attorney\u2019s fees as provided for under the parties\u2019 contract. We disagree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.10 (2001) permits an arbitrator upon the application of a party to modify or correct an arbitration award for the purpose of clarifying the arbitration award, or upon the grounds stated in subdivisions (1) and (3) of subsection (a) of G.S. 1-567.14:\n(1) There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award;\n(3) The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.\nIn this case, the modification of the original award to add a grant of attorney\u2019s fees did not constitute a clarification of the original award. Moreover, the arbitrator\u2019s failure to include attorney\u2019s fees in the original award did not constitute a mistake subject to modification under either subdivisions (1) or (3). of G.S. 1-567.14(a). Indeed, the arbitrator\u2019s decision not to include attorney\u2019s fees in the original award in this case is best summed as follows:\nIf an arbitrator makes a mistake, either as to law or fact, it is a misfortune of the party, and there is no help for it. There is no right of appeal and the Court has no power to revise the decisions of \u201cjudges who are of the parties\u2019 own choosing.\u201d An award is intended to settle the matter in controversy, and thus save the expense of litigation. If a mistake be a sufficient ground for setting aside an award, it opens a door for coming into court in almost every case; for in nine cases out of ten some mistake either of law or fact, may be suggested by the dissatisfied party. Thus *** arbitration, instead of ending would tend to increase litigation.\nCarolina Virginia Fashion Exhibitors, Inc. v. Gunter, 41 N.C. App. 407, 415, 255 S.E.2d 414, 420 (1979) (quoting Poe & Sons, Inc. v. University, 248 N.C. 617, 625, 104 S.E.2d 189, 195 (1958)).\nWe conclude that the arbitrator\u2019s failure to include attorney\u2019s fees in the original arbitration award did not constitute a ground for modification or vacatur under the Uniform Arbitration Act. Accordingly, Judge Horton properly vacated the modified award and confirmed the original award on the grounds that the arbitrator was without authority, under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.10, to modify his original award to include attorney\u2019s fees.\nAffirmed.\nJudges GREENE and BIGGS concur.\n. Defendant argues that NucorCorp. v. General Bearing Corp., 333 N.C. 148, 423 S.E.2d 747 (1992) \u201cindicates the arbitrator could not have awarded attorney fees even if they were included in the original award.\u201d However, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.11 provides \u201cunless otherwise provided in the agreement to arbitrate, the arbitrators\u2019 expenses and fees, together with other expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be paid as provided in the award.\u201d (emphasis added). Therefore, unless the parties \u201cspecifically agree to and provide for such fees in the arbitration agreement, attorney fees may not be awarded in an arbitration award.\u201d Nucor Corp. v. General Bearing Corp., 333 N.C. App. 148, 153, 423 S.E.2d 747, 750 (1992). Thus, by implication, where parties specifically agree to the provision of attorneys fees in an arbitration agreement, an arbitrator may award such fees in an arbitration award.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard H. Robertson, for plaintiff-appellant, C. Denise Vanhoy.",
      "Jones, Hewson & Woolard, by Lawrence J. Goldman and Griffin & Brunson, L.L.P., by Scott I. Perle, for defendant-appellee, Duncan Contractors, Inc."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DENISE VANHOY, Plaintiff v. DUNCAN CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant AND DUNCAN CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. DENISE VANHOY, Defendant\nNo. COA01-1464\n(Filed 1 October 2002)\nArbitration and Mediation\u2014 attorney fees \u2014 no authority to modify award\nThe trial court properly vacated a modified arbitrator\u2019s award of attorney fees and reinstated the original award because the arbitrator was without authority under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-567.10 to modify the original award to include attorney fees. This modification did not constitute a clarification of the original award and the failure to include attorney fees in the original award did not constitute a mistake subject to correction.\nAppeal by Plaintiff from order entered 19 September 2001 by Judge Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 September 2002.\nRichard H. Robertson, for plaintiff-appellant, C. Denise Vanhoy.\nJones, Hewson & Woolard, by Lawrence J. Goldman and Griffin & Brunson, L.L.P., by Scott I. Perle, for defendant-appellee, Duncan Contractors, Inc."
  },
  "file_name": "0320-01",
  "first_page_order": 350,
  "last_page_order": 352
}