![]() We conclude that the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act (“the Maryland Act”), Maryland Code (1957, 1995 Repl.Vol.), § 3-228(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“C.J.”), does not authorize the award of attorney's fees. III. Did the Circuit Court err when it denied Blitz's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, which requested, among other things, that the Court review certain documents, in camera, which would have proven that the conduct of and its attorney was without substantial justification and/or in bad faith and that conduct merited the imposition of sanctions? II. Did the Circuit Court err when it denied Blitz's Motion for Sanctions under Maryland Rule 1-341 because of the Court's personal distaste for Court intervention in a dispute between a Rabbi and a Congregation, in light of the fact that the undisputed evidence before the Court demonstrated that the conduct of and its attorney was without substantial justification and/or in bad faith and that conduct merited the imposition of sanctions? Did the Circuit Court err when it denied Blitz's request under Section 3-228 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code that he be awarded the attorney's fees he incurred in connection with confirming and enforcing the arbitration award against, in light of the clear, unambiguous and broad language in Section 3-228 which authorizes the Circuit Court to award the “costs of the petition, the subsequent proceedings, and disbursements” when the Circuit Court confirms an arbitration award? ![]() He now presents the following questions for our review: Although the court confirmed the award, it denied Rabbi Blitz's requests for attorney's fees and sanctions. When the Synagogue failed to pay, Rabbi Blitz resorted to litigation in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to confirm and enforce the arbitration award. At the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding, the panel awarded Rabbi Blitz the sum of $5,000. Rabbi Marcel Blitz, appellant, and the Beth Isaac Adas Israel Congregation (“Beth Isaac” or “the Synagogue”), appellee, negotiated a binding arbitration agreement to resolve a dispute based on appellant's service as the Synagogue's rabbi. ![]() We must also determine whether the circuit court abused its discretion in declining to impose sanctions, pursuant to Maryland Rule 1-341. We must decide whether the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act permits recovery of attorney's fees incurred in connection with a suit instituted to confirm and enforce an arbitration award, necessitated by a refusal to comply with binding arbitration. Decided: May 06, 1997Īrgued before CATHELL and HOLLANDER, JJ., and ROBERT SWEENEY, Judge (Retired) Specially Assigned.Īaron I. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |