may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat.§ 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Donald T. Bethke,
Filed July 8, 1997
Affirmed, Motion Granted in Part
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 9611430
Ronald E. Haken, 3304 Nicollet Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55408 (Pro Se Appellant)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Holtan, Judge.[*]
This matter arose out of a July 1, 1996, American Arbitration Association arbitration award granting respondent Donald T. Bethke $3,875 plus $400 in costs against appellant Ronald Haken. Appellant challenges the district court orders granting respondent's motion to confirm the arbitration award and denying appellant's motion to vacate the same, contending his due process rights were violated. We affirm.
Appellant claims his due process rights were violated because he did not receive notice of the September 26, 1996, hearing on respondent's confirmation motion. We disagree. It is undisputed that appellant received a copy of the arbitration award dated June 28, 1996, and mailed on July 1, 1996. In addition, appellant admits to receiving the initial motion to confirm documents. The district court granted respondent's motion to confirm on October 9, 1996, in excess of 90 days after the date of the arbitration award. At the time of confirmation, appellant had not contacted the court to request vacation or modification of the award and had not inquired about the motion to confirm. Because the 90-day limitation period had run, the district court was obliged to confirm the award. See Minn. Stat. § 572.18 (1996) (once time limits for vacation, modification or correction of an award have run, the court shall confirm an award upon application of a party). Likewise, the district court properly denied appellant's motion to vacate, filed on November 5, 1996, well after the time limit for vacation of the award. Wacker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 312 Minn. 242, 249, 251 N.W.2d 346, 349-50 (1977) (running of statutory period precludes challenge to award of arbitration on appeal).
Further, we reject appellant's argument based on respondent's allegedly fraudulent mailing of court documents to an incorrect address. Appellant does not dispute receipt of respondent's July 3, 1993, certified letter requesting payment of the arbitration award. The domestic return receipt indicates that appellant received that mailing at the Forest Lake address on July 5, 1996. Appellant did not inform respondent that this was an incorrect address and respondent continued to send materials to the Forest Lake address. In addition, appellant should have discovered that respondent was using an incorrect address more than 90 days before confirmation of the award. Thus, even if we could construe using an incorrect address as fraud, appellant failed to make his motion to vacate within the applicable time limit. See Minn. Stat. § 572.19, subd. 2 (where request to vacate is based upon fraud, the 90-day limitation period runs from the time the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered).
Finally, we have reviewed the following assertions set forth by appellant: (1) the district court improperly engaged in ex parte communications with respondent; (2) the district court improperly assisted respondent; (3) the district court had a predisposed position on the case; and (4) respondent made hand-written notes in the case file after the materials had been filed with the court. We conclude these arguments are without merit.
Affirmed, motion granted in part.
[ ]* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.