Business law — Arbitration award — Motion for modification/correction

This action arose out of a 50/50 business partnership appellant, Melissa Greene Harrison, and appellee, Sarah Sheroke, entered into in May 2004. The business partnership was called Home Elegance & Design, LLC and Designer’s Elegance, LLC., (the “Businesses”). Both companies were involved in the interior design business. Home Elegance provided furniture and furnishings to the general public. Designer Elegance provided wholesale furniture and furnishings to interior designers and others working in the interior design industry.

The matter before us arises from a Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary RestrainingOrder filed on October 19, 2005, by appellee against appellant, because of suspected misconduct related to the two businesses they owned. The primary issues on appeal are whether appellant’s Motion for Modification or Correction of the Arbitration Award (“Motion for Modification or Correction of Award”), filed on December 5, 2011, and appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to Extend Time to Object to Arbitration Award, or in the Alternative, to Vacate Arbitration Award and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (“Motion to Vacate Award”), filed on October 9, 2012, were timely. The Circuit Court for Harford County denied the motion on June 10, 2013 as untimely. Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in its decision, raising the following questions on review, which we rephrase and condense as follows:

  1. Did the circuit court err when it denied appellant’s Motion for Modification or Correction of Award as untimely?
  2. Did the circuit court err when it denied appellant’s Motion to Vacate Award as untimely?

Read the 20-page opinion here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *