Real Property Law
Cal. Real. Prop. Journal VOL. 40, NO. 3, 2022
Content
- 2022-2023 Executive Committee of the Real Property Law Section
- 2022-2023 Public Law Executive Committee
- BEHIND THE WORDS OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® RESIDENTIAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT: LEGAL AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
- How Public Agencies Can Reduce Blight and Generate Revenue With Civil Litigation
- Inside This Issue
- Letter From the California Real Property Editor
- Letter From the Public Law Section Chair
- Letter From the Public Law Section Editor
- Public Law Case Updates
- Public Law Editorial Board
- Public Lawyer Spotlight: Charles Bell, Jr., City Attorney For the City of National City
- Real Property Editorial Board
- Recent Rpls Enews Articles
- U.S. Supreme Court Issues First Amendment Decisions Impacting Sign Regulations and Flag Policies
- Moncharsh and the Risk of Arbitration
MONCHARSH AND THE RISK OF ARBITRATION
(LONG PAST) TIME TO RECONSIDER LETTING ARBITRATORS MAKE MISTAKES
Written by John P. McGill*
I. INTRODUCTION
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase01 has been on the books for 30 years and the obstacles it poses to review and vacatur are so firmly established02 and so well known that if a party seeks to appeal an arbitration award because it contains error and/or results in substantial injustice, the first response by any appellate attorney is to advise against it. The reason: Moncharsh denies review and vacating for errors of law or fact in an arbitrator’s decision. Indeed, Moncharsh and its progeny acknowledge and implicitly authorize arbitrators to make such errors and allows them to do so with impunity.03 Consequently, fairness, equity, and a consistent application of the law are compromised.