Eric F. Netter, et al., Respondents,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1112

Eric F. Netter, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Shauna L. Raisch,
Appellant.

Filed May 10, 2021
Affirmed
Bryan, Judge

Cass County District Court
File No. 11-CV-19-772

Jonathan D. Wolf, Benjamin B. Bohnsack , Rinke Noonan, St. Cl oud, Minnesota (for
respondents)

Boris Parker, Jordan W. Anderson, Parker & Wenner, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRYAN, Judge
In this appeal from the district court’s or der confirming an arbitrator’s final award
in a dispute over property rights, appellant argues that the district court erred when it denied
her motion to vacate the award. Because appellant’s argument is contrary to the law, we
affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion.

2
FACTS
In May 2019, respondents Eric and Constance Netter, Netter Enterprises, and Ericka
and Creek Kuser brought a civil action agains t appellant Shauna Raisch regarding the
parties’ property rights to lakeshore on Leech Lake. Acco rding to the co mplaint, the
owners of nine lots along the lakeshore each own an interest in a parcel known as Outlot C.
Raisch owns two of the nine interests in Ou tlot C, and respondents all own interests as
well.1
In their complaint, respondents alleged that Raisch had substantially interfered with
the property rights of the other lot owners by denying the property owners access to the
lake. The complaint alleged that Raisch had interfered with respondents’ efforts to install
a dock in front of Outlot C and had installed her own dock system in a way that encroached
on the waters in front of Outlot C. The lots are subject to a “Dec laration of Covenants,
Conditions, Easements and Restrictions” (the declaration), which the owners entered into
in June 1997. An amendment to the decl aration was executed in September 1998.
Respondents’ complaint alleged that Raisch’s actions violated the terms in the declaration,
as well as Minnesota law. Respondents soug ht injunctive relief, asking the district court
to order Raisch to remove portions of her dock system that interfered with the rights of the
other lot owners, and to require Raisch to comply with the terms of the declaration.
Raisch moved to dismiss or to compel arb itration, pointing to an arbitration clause
in the declaration that requires arbitration of all disputes between lot owners regarding

1 The owners of the remaining interests in Ou tlot C are not parties to this case, but they
consented to the action and aligned with respondents during the proceedings.

3
docks and lake access. The dist rict court granted Raisch’s motion to compel arbitration
and stayed proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. The district court appointed
an arbitrator, and the case proceeded to arbitration.
An arbitration hearing was he ld in June 2020. The arb itrator issued a final award
and memorandum, which granted respondents mu ch of the injunctive relief they sought.
Based on the arbitrator’s interpretation of relevant provisions in the declaration, the order
defined the scope of the various lot owners’ vo ting rights under the declaration as well as
their dock placement rights and ability to make improvements to Outlot C. The arbitrator
ordered Raisch to temporarily remove her dock from the lake and ordered the Outlot C
owners to install a dock configuration agreed upon by a majority of the owners, with Raisch
permitted to reinstall her dock in a way th at did not interfere with the new dock
configuration.
Respondents moved the district court to co nfirm the arbitrator’s award. Raisch
moved to vacate the award, argu ing that the arbitrator exceede d his powers. The district
court confirmed the arbitrator’s award and de nied Raisch’s motion to vacate, rejecting
Raisch’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. This appeal follows.
DECISION
Raisch argues that the district court erred by confirming the arbitrator’s final award
and denying her motion to vacate the award. Specifically, Raisch contends that the
arbitrator exceeded his authority because th e arbitrator erroneously applied the law
regarding riparian rights and misapplied the principles of contract interpretation. Because
arbitrators do not exceed their po wers if they misapply the la w, Raisch did not assert a

4
valid basis to vacate the award. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s decision to deny
Raisch’s motion to vacate.
Parties may move to vacate arbitration awards on several grounds, including when
arbitrators exceed their powers. Minn. Stat. § 572B.23(a) (2020). As the party challenging
the arbitration award, Raisch has the burden to show that the arbitrator in this case “clearly
exceed[ed his] powers before [the] award will be overturned.” Hilltop Constr., Inc. v. Lou
Park Apartments, 324 N.W.2d 236, 239 (Minn. 1982). “Every reasonable presumption is
exercised in favor of the finality and validity of the award.” Nat’l Indem. Co. v. Farm
Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 348 N.W.2d 748, 750 (Minn. 1984).
Raisch argues that by incorrectly applyi ng the law, the arbitrator exceeded his
powers.2 Raisch is incorrect. This court has explained that when an appellate court is faced
with the question of whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers, “the only issue before us
is whether the question decided by the arbitrat or was within his auth ority to decide; we
may not examine the underlying evidence and record, or otherwise delve into the merits of
the award.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sankey , 605 N.W.2d 411, 414 (Minn. App. 2000),
review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2000). “[A]n arbitrat or, in the absence of an agreement
limiting his authority, is the final judge of both law and fact, including the interpretation of
the terms of any contract, and his award will not be reviewed or set aside for mistake of

2 We observe that Raisch does not challenge the arbitrability of the dispute. We also note
that the arbitration clause in the declara tion mandates arbitration of issues regarding
enforcement and disputes involving lake access and the positioning of docks. See County
of Hennepin v. Law Enf’t Labor Servs., Inc., Local No. 19 , 527 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Minn.
1995) (holding that the scope of an arbitrator’s author ity is a matter of contract
interpretation).

5
either law or fact in the absence of fraud, mistake in applying his own theory, misconduct,
or other disregard of duty.” State, Office of State Auditor v. Minn. Ass’n of Prof’l Emps.,
504 N.W.2d 751, 754 (Minn. 1993) (quotation omitted). While we do not necessarily see
any error in the arbitrator’s interpretation of the declaration or application of the law, we
note that, even if we accepted Raisch’s argument that the arbitrator erred in these respects,
the arbitrator would not have exceeded his powers. In other words, misapplication of the
law is not a basis to vacate an arbitrator’s award and an appellate court “will not overturn
an award merely because [it] ma y disagree with the arbitrator s’ decision on the merits.”
See Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Dig. Corp. , 854 N.W.2d 750, 761 (Minn. 2014) (quotation
omitted).
We also observe that federal courts, when addressing the parallel provision in the
Federal Arbitration Act, have taken the same approach regarding an appellate court’s
limited scope of review regarding whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers. The Eighth
Circuit has explained that, “[e]ven if the cour t is convinced that th e arbitrator committed
serious error,” it must confirm the arbitration award “so long as the arbitrator is even
arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority.”
Gas Aggregation Servs., Inc. v. Howard Avis ta Energy, LLC , 319 F.3d 1060, 1064 (8th
Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). And the United States Supreme Court has stated the issue
even more bluntly, holding that an arbitrator’s grave legal error is not a basis to vacate the
award:
All we say is that convincing a court of an arbitrator’s error—
even his grave error—is not enough. So long as the arbitrator
was “arguably construing” the contract—which this one was—

6
a court may not correct his mistakes under § 10(a)(4). The
potential for those mistakes is the price of agreeing to
arbitration. As we have held before, we hold again: “It is the
arbitrator’s construction of th e contract which was bargained
for; and so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction
of the contract, the courts have no business overruling him
because their interpretation of the contract is different from
his.” The arbitrator’s construc tion holds, however good, bad,
or ugly.

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 572-73, 133 S. Ct. 2064, 2070-71 (2013)
(citations and quotations omitted). We consider this federal caselaw persuasive and believe
that Minnesota courts have inte rpreted the state arbitration st atute in the same way. We
therefore reject Raisch’s argument that an arbitrator exceeds his authority if he erroneously
applies the law.
Because the arbitrator decided issues that were within the scope of the declaration’s
arbitration clause, he did not exceed his powers in a way that would allow the award to be
vacated. The district court did not err by denying Raisch’s motion to vacate the arbitration
award and by confirming the final award.
Affirmed.