Bowater Inc. v. Zager

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court considered an appeal from an order compelling arbitration under a long-term timber lease. The court held that the appeal was timely because a Rule 59(e) motion suspended the appeal period, and that the trial court improperly required the arbitrators to be licensed attorneys instead of following the arbitrator-selection method specified in the arbitration agreement. The court reversed and remanded.

Holdings

1. A timely Rule 59(e) motion to alter, amend, or vacate an order granting arbitration suspends the running of the 42-day period for appealing that order. Because an order granting or denying arbitration is appealable as of right under Rule 4(d), it qualifies as a judgment under Rule 54(a) for purposes of Rule 59(e).
2. When a trial court compels arbitration, it must enforce the arbitration agreement according to its terms, including the parties' agreed qualifications and method for selecting arbitrators. The trial court therefore erred by requiring the arbitrators to be duly licensed attorneys and by omitting the requirement that they have at least 20 years' membership in the Society of American Foresters.
3. Under the lease, Bowater as successor lessee had the sole selection right on the lessee's side, and the lessors had the corresponding selection right. The nonsignatory defendants did not obtain a collective or separate vote in the arbitrator-selection process merely because they sought to participate in arbitration.
4. Alabama law does not generally require arbitrators to be licensed attorneys. The trial court therefore erred in imposing a licensed-attorney requirement on the arbitrators.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bowater's appeal from the order compelling arbitration was timely when Bowater filed a Rule 59(e) motion that was denied before the notice of appeal was filed.
2. Whether the trial court could require the arbitrators to be licensed attorneys instead of enforcing the arbitrator qualifications and selection method specified in the lease.
3. Whether the nonsignatory defendants could collectively exercise a selection right under the lease's provision giving the lessee and lessors the right to select arbitrators.
4. Whether Alabama law generally requires arbitrators to be licensed attorneys.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded