Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-223 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

Carnes, Arbitration in Arkansas — At Common Law and Under the 1869 Statute, 1992 Ark. L. Notes 17.

Flaccus, Anderson, The Family Home and the Bankruptcy Aftermath of Divorce, 1992 Ark. L. Notes 31.

Case Notes

In General.

The fact that parties agree to submit their disputes to arbitration implies an agreement to be bound by the arbitration board's decision, thus, every reasonable intendment and presumption is in favor of the award and it should not be vacated unless it clearly appears that it was made without authority, or was the result of fraud or mistake, or misfeasance or malfeasance; unless the illegality of the decision appears on the face of the award, courts will not interfere merely because the arbitrators have mistaken the law or decided contrary to the rules of established practice as observed by courts of law and equity. McLeroy v. Waller, 21 Ark. App. 292, 731 S.W.2d 789 (1987) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Judicial review of an arbitration award is more limited than appellate review of a trial court's decision; whenever possible, a court must construe an award so as to uphold its validity. Chrobak v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 46 Ark. App. 105, 878 S.W.2d 760 (1994) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

On a motion to vacate an arbitration award, an arbitrator's procedural decisions are entitled to deference. Hart v. McChristian, 71 Ark. App. 178, 36 S.W.3d 357 (2000), modified, 344 Ark. 656, 42 S.W.3d 552 (2001) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Trial court correctly ruled that a terminated school principal's suit against a school district was barred by res judicata as the principal had a full and fair opportunity in the arbitration proceeding to litigate the matters raised in the instant suit; further, the arbitrator denied reconsideration and the principal neither appealed from that ruling nor asked the circuit court to vacate or modify award. Davis v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 92 Ark. App. 174, 211 S.W.3d 587 (2005) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Burden of Proof.

The interest, partiality, or bias which will overturn an arbitration award must be certain and direct, not remote, uncertain, or speculative; the party attempting to set aside the award bears the burden of proof to establish partiality. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Deislinger, 289 Ark. 248, 711 S.W.2d 771 (1986); Lancaster v. West, 319 Ark. 293, 891 S.W.2d 357 (1995) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Grounds.

Neither the failure to keep a record of the arbitration proceedings nor the failure to follow the rules of evidence is enumerated in this section as being a ground for setting aside an arbitration award. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Deislinger, 289 Ark. 248, 711 S.W.2d 771 (1986) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Even though Unif. R. Evid. 406 may have permitted some of the evidence that was excluded at the arbitration hearing to have been considered by a court of law or equity, the exclusion of the evidence in the arbitration proceeding was not a statutory ground for vacating the arbitration award. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Deislinger, 289 Ark. 248, 711 S.W.2d 771 (1986) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

The decision of the arbitration board on all questions of law and fact is conclusive, and the award shall be confirmed unless grounds are established to support vacating the award; the grounds for vacating or modifying an arbitration award may include both the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown and the refusal to hear evidence material to the controversy so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party. McLeroy v. Waller, 21 Ark. App. 292, 731 S.W.2d 789 (1987) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

“Undue means” means something akin to fraud and corruption; a mistake does not amount to undue means. Ark. Dep't of Parks & Tourism v. Resort Managers, Inc., 294 Ark. 255, 743 S.W.2d 389 (1988) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Mistakes of fact or law are not a basis to set aside an award. Ark. Dep't of Parks & Tourism v. Resort Managers, Inc., 294 Ark. 255, 743 S.W.2d 389 (1988) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

The trial judge properly declined to vacate an arbitration award where the appellant failed to raise a substantive issue sufficient to avoid the arbitration procedure and the finality of the award. Chrobak v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 46 Ark. App. 105, 878 S.W.2d 760 (1994) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Trial court properly refused to vacate an arbitral decision under subsection (a) of this section that held that the renewal provisions in a lease constituted an express covenant for continued renewals as: (1) the arbitrators attempted to ascertain the parties' intent; (2) the mining lease required a substantial capital investment by the tenants such that they intended the lease to continue for an extended period; (3) the landlords were paid the fair market rate for stone and rock; (4) the renewal language was more specific than an ordinary covenant to renew; and (5) the arbitrators acted within their jurisdiction. Parks v. Rogers Group, Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 109 (2011) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Limitation of Actions.

The proper state statute of limitations to be applied in determining the timeliness of actions brought by a union employee against an employer for breach of a collective bargaining agreement and against a union for breach of the duty of fair representation was subsection (b), governing the vacating of arbitration awards. Hunt v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 561 F. Supp. 310 (E.D. Ark. 1983), aff'd, 729 F.2d 578 (8th Cir. 1984) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Party to an arbitration proceeding cannot wait until award is made and then complain about something that could have been questioned or discovered during the process. Ark. Dep't of Parks & Tourism v. Resort Managers, Inc., 294 Ark. 255, 743 S.W.2d 389 (1988) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Refusal to Vacate Affirmed.

Although both parties submitted valuations reflecting an LLC member's interest in the LLC, only appellees' valuation complied with the terms of the LLC agreement; thus, the member failed to prove a statutory ground for vacating the arbitration award. Shannon v. Steinberg, 2017 Ark. App. 231, 519 S.W.3d 363 (2017) (decided under prior version of uniform act).

Cited: Goldtrap v. Bold Dental Mgmt., LLC, 2018 Ark. App. 209, 547 S.W.3d 104 (2018).