Jose Ismael Ramirez D/B/A Forthright Construction and Forthright-Ramirez, Inc. v. JJ & EG, LLC ( 2023 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 10, 2023
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-22-00715-CV
JOSE ISMAEL RAMIREZ D/B/A FORTHRIGHT CONSTRUCTION AND
FORTHRIGHT-RAMIREZ, INC., Appellant
V.
JJ & EG, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 80th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2019-76911
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jose Ismael Ramirez d/b/a Forthright Construction and Forthright-
Ramirez, Inc. (Ramirez) challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify,
correct, or reform the judgment. In a single issue, Ramirez argues that the final
judgment should have tracked the language of the arbitration award. We affirm.
Background
In October 2019, appellee JJ & EG, LLC (Plaintiff) filed suit against Ramirez.
In its original petition, Plaintiff alleged that Ramirez served as the general contractor
for the construction of a body shop. At some point, Plaintiff questioned Ramirez’s
progress on the project and confronted Ramirez about the lack of progress.
Subsequently, Ramirez refused to return to the construction site, and the agreement
between the parties was terminated. The parties eventually agreed to arbitrate their
claims in conformity with the arbitration clause contained in their agreement, and
the trial court signed an order compelling arbitration in August 2021. The matter
proceeded to arbitration, and an arbitrator rendered a final arbitration award in favor
of Plaintiff on June 21, 2022. The following day, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting
that the trial court issue a final judgment conforming to its proposed order. On July
22, 2022, the trial court signed the final judgment. In August 2022, Ramirez filed a
motion to modify, correct, or reform the final judgment arguing that the judgment
did not track the language of the arbitration award. Ramirez emphasized findings in
the arbitration award favorable to him that were excluded from the final judgment.
The trial court did not rule on this motion, and it was denied by operation of law.
This appeal followed.
Discussion
In his only issue on appeal, Ramirez contends that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment because
the final judgment failed to track the language of the final arbitration award. We
disagree.
A trial court’s denial of a motion to modify a final judgment is typically
reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Hodges v. Rajpal, 459 S.W.3d
237, 250 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.). The test for an abuse of discretion is
whether the trial court acted arbitrarily or without reference to guiding legal
principles. Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838–39 (Tex. 2004).
2
“Texas courts give arbitration awards great deference and indulge every
reasonable presumption to uphold arbitrators’ decisions.” Ctr. Rose Partners, Ltd. v.
Bailey, 587 S.W.3d 514, 528 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.). The
Texas General Arbitration Act states that the court, on application of a party, “shall
confirm” an arbitration award “[u]nless grounds are offered for vacating, modifying,
or correcting [it] under Section 171.088 or 171.091.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 171.087. Upon “granting an order that confirms . . . an award, the court shall enter
a judgment or decree conforming to the order.” Id. § 171.092.
Even though Ramirez maintains that the trial court abused its discretion by
failing to track the language of the arbitration award, he has not provided any
authority in support of his contention. Indeed, section 171.092 only requires a trial
court to enter a judgment or decree conforming to the order that confirms an
arbitration award. Id. We have found no requirement that the trial court’s judgment
must include the arbitrator’s findings. See, e.g., Brown v. Lanier Worldwide, Inc.,
124 S.W.3d 883, 901 n.32 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.)
(“Arbitrators are not required to state the reason for their award or to make any
findings of fact.”).
Accordingly, we overrule Ramirez’s sole issue on appeal.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
/s/ Frances Bourliot
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
3