Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pepper v. Sadley

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

May 24, 2013

SHELDON PEPPER, by Power of Attorney for EMMA E. PEPPER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CURTIS SADLEY, Defendant-Respondent. PEPPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. and SHELDON PEPPER, by Power of Attorney for EMMA E. PEPPER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CURTIS SADLEY, Defendant-Respondent.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted April 17, 2013

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity, Cumberland County, Docket No. C-22-11 and C-17-04.

Buonadonna & Benson, P.C., attorneys for appellants (Alan G. Giebner, on the brief).

Grimes & Grimes, L.L.C., attorneys for respondent (Joseph P. Grimes, on the brief).

Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Happas.

PER CURIAM

These consolidated appeals involve a boundary dispute arising out of property purchased by Emma and Milton Pepper in 1957 and property purchased by Curtis Sadley in 2003. The parties in the current dispute entered into a consent order to submit the matter to binding arbitration. A provision in the order stated that the parties would submit expert reports in lieu of testimony from their experts. An additional provision permitted the parties to supplement the record with additional evidence and testimony. At the time of the hearing, defendant, over the objection of plaintiffs, produced his expert. A panel of three arbitrators issued an award favorable to defendant. The arbitrators submitted their bill to the court for approval. Following a hearing, the court ordered plaintiffs to pay 100% of the arbitrators' fees on the basis that defendant was the prevailing party. Because there were other pending claims, the court certified its fee award as final. The present appeal followed.

On appeal, under Docket No. A-3459-11, plaintiff raises the following points:

POINT I
THE ARBITRATORS EXCEEDED THEIR POWER BY FAILING TO ARBITRATE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AND BY ALLOWING AN INDIVIDUAL NOT AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ARBITRATION.
POINT II
THERE WAS EVIDENT PARTIALITY BY THE ARBITRATORS, OR MISCONDUCT PREJUDICING THE RIGHTS OF A PARTY TO ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.