Mikail K. Abdul-Karim
v.
Isaiah Abdul-Karim et al.
Providence County Superior Court (KM 17-1067) Associate
Justice Daniel A. Procaccini
For
Plaintiff: John V. McGreen, Esq.
For
Defendants: Isaiah Abdul-Karim, Pro Se Musa Abdul-Karim, Pro
Se Karima A. Karim, Pro Se Latifa B. Karim, Pro Se
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia,
JJ.
ORDER
Before
us is an appeal from a Superior Court order confirming an
arbitration award and appointing a commissioner to carry out
the terms of the award. The need for arbitration arose out of
a dispute involving a joint tenancy-from which the plaintiff
appellee Mikail K. Abdul-Karim (Mikail[1] or plaintiff)
wishes to separate-in real property located at 13 Boston
Street in Coventry, Rhode Island (the property). The
defendants-Karima A. Karim (Karima), Musa Abdul-Karim (Musa),
and Latifa B. Karim (Latifa)-who have been self-represented
throughout these proceedings, argue that they were not
afforded a hearing on arbitration and seek a stay of the
property's sale. This case came before the Supreme Court
pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show
cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be
summarily decided. After considering the parties' written
and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude
that cause has not been shown and that this case may be
decided without further briefing or argument. In accordance
with the strong public policy in favor of the finality of
arbitration awards, we affirm the order of the Superior
Court.
On June
25, 2012, Mikail purchased the property by a warranty
deed.[2] On September 13, 2012, Mikail signed and
recorded a quitclaim deed in the Coventry land evidence
records. The quitclaim deed provided Mikail with a 50 percent
interest in the property, Isaiah Abdul-Karim
(Isaiah)[3] with a 25 percent interest, Karima with a
12.5 percent interest, and Musa and Latifa with a share of
12.5 percent interest in the property (collectively, the
tenants).
A few
days later, on September 15, 2012, the tenants entered into
an "Agreement Among Joint Tenants" (the agreement)
regarding the ownership of the property; the agreement was
recorded in the Coventry land evidence records on September
28, 2012. In the event any of the tenants wished to alienate
his or her ownership of the property, the agreement set forth
a procedure to dissolve the joint tenancy. Under the
agreement, Mikail had "the first option" to
purchase the separating tenant's interest. If Mikail
declined to purchase the interest of the separating tenant,
the remaining tenants had the option to purchase it in
proportion to their respective equity interest in the
property. If Mikail himself wished to separate, or if the
other tenants were "unwilling or unable" to
purchase the separating tenant's interest, then the
property was to be sold at an agreed-upon price. If the
tenants were unable to agree on a price, the fair market
value was to be determined by an independent real estate
appraiser selected by Mikail. The proceeds would then be
divided in proportion to each tenant's equity interest.
Finally, the agreement provided that "any disputes
between [the tenants] shall be settled by binding arbitration
under the rules of the American Arbitration Association then
in effect."
Several
years later, on October 6, 2017, Mikail filed an application
to confirm an arbitration award in the Kent County Superior
Court. The agreement and the arbitration award were attached
to Mikail's application. The arbitration award was signed
by an arbitrator and dated July 7, 2017, and the award
indicated that the arbitrator had held a hearing on June 23,
2017 regarding a dispute concerning the enforceability of the
agreement.[4] According to the parties, this hearing was
conducted over the telephone.
On
October 24, 2017, Karima filed a "motion to
vacate."[5] The motion briefly stated that Karima had
not been a party to arbitration and that the
"judgment" was based on "misleading and/or
incomplete information[.]"
On
November 3, 2017, a Superior Court justice (the hearing
justice) heard Mikail's application to confirm the
arbitration award and Karima's motion to vacate.
Convinced by defendants' testimony that they had
understood the hearing to be a preliminary one-and not an
arbitration hearing-the hearing justice granted Karima's
motion to vacate.
A
second or "final hearing" was held by telephone on
February 5, 2018 by a different arbitrator.[6] The second
arbitrator issued a written award on February 8,
2018.[7] The award stated that Mikail and his
attorney were present; Karima, Latifa, and Musa were present;
and, Isaiah was not present. The award further stated that
"[t]he parties were notified that this would be a final
hearing on the matter, which occurred via telephone
conference with [an American Arbitration Association]
Administrator on the call as well. All parties were given the
opportunity to be heard, to present evidence, and to respond
to each side's contentions."[8]
On
March 11, 2018, Mikail filed an amended application to
confirm the award. On March 19, 2018, Latifa filed a
"motion to vacate and dismiss the judgment,"
alleging that there had been no second arbitration hearing
and that the second award was "based on an illegal
'quitclaim' [deed] not presented to nor signed by the
joint tenants."
On
March 23, 2018, a second Superior Court justice (the second
hearing justice) heard Mikail's amended application to
confirm the second award and Latifa's motion to vacate.
Mikail's counsel was present, as were Latifa, Musa, and
Karima. At the hearing, Mikail also sought the appointment of
a commissioner "to enforce the award because of the
difficulty * * * [Mikail] has had in listing the
property[.]"
The
second hearing justice issued a decision, stating that he had
considered the application to confirm the award and its
attachments, including the agreement, which he observed was
signed by all parties and notarized. He noted that the award
"appears to be a thoughtful decision." He explained
to defendants that they "got a second opportunity in
front of another arbitrator," and that "[b]y
everything I have in front of me that took place, it was an
appropriate opportunity for you to be heard." He further
stated that he saw "no legal basis to not confirm the
arbitration award[.]" Consequently, ...