Arizona Adopts the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“Text”) Arizona State Law Journal, Volume 43, page 481 2011-12 Supplement By Bruce E. Meyerson AZ-RUAA substantially mirrors the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, we look to “Because cases arising thereunder and to RUAA’s commentary for guidance.” Sun Valley Ranch 2012 WL 5862464, *2 (Ariz. Ct. 308 Ltd. P’ship ex rel. Englewood Props., Inc. v. Robson, App. Nov. 20, 2012); see River Housing Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, P.S., 272 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). See Text at 482 & n.7. Key Definitions There is no definition of in the RUAA or the AZ-RUAA. In Rimov v. Schultz, “arbitration” 253 P.3d 462, 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011), the court held that a nonbinding process (called Non-Binding Arbitration), a result of which is not binding upon the “the participants and not enforceable in a court of law, is by definition not an arbitration under” the Washington version of the RUAA. See generally Text at 484-85 & accompanying notes. Applicability of the AZ-RUAA and Exclusions The District of Columbia adoption of the RUAA became effective July 1, 2009. In v. Dodds, 35 A.3d 433 (D.C. Ct. App. 2012), the court held that the law applied to an arbitration agreement entered into in 2007 because the statute applies to an arbitration agreement whenever made. See Text at 486. Arbitrability of Disputes In Estate of Cortez v. Avalon Care Center Tucson, L.L.C., 245 P.3d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010), the court considered the doctrine of waiver in a situation where it found that a party had unreasonably delayed in asserting the right to arbitrate. In that case, the party seeking to compel arbitration failed to request arbitration in its answer and waited another year to demand arbitration. The court found that by failing to request arbitration in its answer and participating substantially in the litigation, the party exhibited conduct inconsistent with enforcing its arbitration agreement. The court
Arizona Adopts the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“Text”) Arizona State Law Journal, Volume 43, page 481 2011-12 Supplement By Bruce E. Meyerson “Because AZ-RUAA substantially mirrors the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, we look to cases arising thereunder and to RUAA’s commentary for guidance.” Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. P’ship ex rel. Englewood Props., Inc. v. Robson, 2012 WL 5862464, *2 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2012); see River Housing Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, P.S., 272 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). See Text at 482 & n.7. Key Definitions There is no definition of “arbitration” in the RUAA or the AZ-RUAA. In Rimov v. Schultz, 253 P.3d 462, 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011), the court held that a nonbinding process (called Non-Binding Arbitration), a “the result of which is not binding upon the participants and not enforceable in a court of law, is by definition not an arbitration under” the Washington version of the RUAA. See generally Text at 484-85 & accompanying notes. Applicability of the AZ-RUAA and Exclusions The District of Columbia adoption of the RUAA became effective July 1, 2009. In v. Dodds, 35 A.3d 433 (D.C. Ct. App. 2012), the court held that the law applied to an arbitration agreement entered into in 2007 because the statute applies to an arbitration agreement whenever made. See Text at 486. Arbitrability of Disputes In Estate of Cortez v. Avalon Care Center Tucson, L.L.C., 245 P.3d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010), the court considered the doctrine of waiver in a situation where it found that a party had unreasonably delayed in asserting the right to arbitrate. In that case, the party seeking to compel arbitration failed to request arbitration in its answer and waited another year to demand arbitration. The court found that by failing to request arbitration in its answer and participating substantially in the litigation, the party exhibited conduct inconsistent with enforcing its arbitration agreement. The court
2011-12Update_000.docx