Simpson v. Artillery Construction, LLC, 14-25-00301-CV, October 22, 2026.
On appeal from 11th District Court, Harris County, Texas
Synopsis
An arbitrator’s political commentary, prior candidacies, and intent to seek public office do not establish evident partiality under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 171.088(a)(2)(A) absent a connection to the parties, counsel, or dispute. Because the challenged information would not create in an objective observer a reasonable impression of partiality, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment confirming the arbitration award.
Relevance to Family Law
Texas family-law litigators increasingly use arbitration to resolve property characterization, valuation, reimbursement, tracing, contractual, and attorney’s-fee disputes. Arbitration may also arise in conservatorship and possession matters, subject to the Family Code’s independent best-interest safeguards. Simpson confirms that a party seeking to vacate a family-law arbitration award generally cannot rely on disagreement with an arbitrator’s political views, public commentary, prior campaigns, or future electoral plans. The challenge must fit a recognized statutory ground for vacatur and, for evident partiality, must identify undisclosed facts that objectively suggest partiality in the particular case.
That distinction is especially important in divorce and custody litigation. Arbitrators may have published articles, served in professional organizations, spoken on public issues, participated in political activity, or taken positions on legal policy. Those activities do not automatically become disqualifying merely because the arbitration involves sensitive subjects such as family violence, parental rights, business ownership, gender roles, religious practices, or wealth division. Counsel must establish a meaningful nexus between the undisclosed information and the parties, attorneys, witnesses, financial interests, or controversy—not simply a generalized concern about the arbitrator’s worldview.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Shalondria Simpson contracted with Artillery Construction, LLC and Jason Junkin to build a home. After alleged delays and construction deficiencies, Simpson brought claims including negligence, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. She also asserted that Junkin was individually liable under an alter-ego theory.
The construction contract contained a mandatory binding-arbitration provision. After the trial court granted an agreed motion to arbitrate, the parties selected Felicia Harris-Hoss as arbitrator. The arbitrator conducted a multi-day hearing, received post-hearing briefing, and heard testimony from the parties and four expert witnesses.
The final award granted Simpson $22,440 in past repair damages, along with arbitration fees, costs, and pre- and post-award interest. The arbitrator imposed liability against Artillery Construction but declined to hold Junkin jointly and severally liable.
After issuance of the award, Simpson investigated the arbitrator’s online presence. She alleged that the arbitrator had not disclosed political and social commentary, prior congressional campaigns, an intent to seek public office, social-media activity, and campaign-related information. Simpson also asserted that online materials had been deleted or deidentified and that the arbitrator blocked Simpson’s counsel on social media sometime between the hearing and issuance of the award.
The arbitrator’s pre-arbitration disclosure had identified prior mediations involving counsel, a mediation involving an unrelated entity, and a Facebook connection with Simpson’s attorney. The disclosure invited the parties and counsel to raise questions concerning the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality. The record did not reflect that anyone responded to that invitation.
The evidence attached to the motion to vacate included political advertisements, campaign announcements, social-media posts, voter-information articles, a statement of candidacy, and campaign reports. The record, however, did not identify individual campaign contributions connecting the arbitrator to the parties, counsel, or the underlying construction dispute.
Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Simpson’s motion to vacate and confirmed the arbitration award.
Issues Decided
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether:
- The arbitrator’s failure to disclose political writings, social-media activity, prior candidacies, or an intent to seek public office constituted evident partiality under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 171.088(a)(2)(A).
- The arbitrator exceeded her powers in issuing the award.
- Public policy supplied an independent ground for vacating the award under the Texas Arbitration Act.
- The Texas Arbitration Act required an arbitrator to disclose an intent to run for public office.
Rules Applied
Texas law strongly favors arbitration, and judicial review of an arbitration award is “extraordinarily narrow.” Courts indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of the award. Hoskins v. Hoskins, 497 S.W.3d 490, 494 (Tex. 2016); Denbury Onshore, LLC v. Texcal Energy S. Tex., L.P., 513 S.W.3d 511, 515 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).
Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 171.087, a court must confirm an arbitration award unless a party establishes a statutory basis for vacatur, modification, or correction. Section 171.088(a)(2)(A) permits vacatur when a party’s rights were prejudiced by the evident partiality of an arbitrator appointed as a neutral.
An arbitrator demonstrates evident partiality by failing to disclose facts that might create, in an objective observer, a reasonable impression of the arbitrator’s partiality. Trivial information does not meet that standard and need not be disclosed. Tenaska Energy, Inc. v. Ponderosa Pine Energy, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 518, 525 (Tex. 2014).
The court contrasted the claimed nondisclosures with cases involving direct professional or financial connections. In Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. TUCO Inc., 960 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1997), a neutral arbitrator failed to disclose a significant referral from the firm of a non-neutral arbitrator. In Tenaska, the arbitrator failed to disclose substantial business-development contacts with the same attorneys appearing before him. Those relationships could objectively suggest partiality because they created a specific connection between the arbitrator and participants in the arbitration.
The TAA’s vacatur provisions are exclusive unless a legally enforceable agreement provides an authorized basis for expanded review. A generalized appeal to public policy does not independently authorize vacatur under the statute. See Hoskins, 497 S.W.3d at 494–95.
Application
The court focused on whether the undisclosed political information bore an objective relationship to the arbitration. The arbitrator’s prior campaigns, political opinions, election-related content, and possible intent to seek office did not identify a relationship with Artillery Construction, Junkin, Simpson, the attorneys, the witnesses, or the subject matter of the construction dispute. Without that nexus, the information did not resemble the undisclosed referrals, business solicitations, financial interests, or repeated attorney relationships at issue in the authorities on which Simpson relied.
The record also did not substantiate the asserted campaign-finance connection. Although Simpson referred to donations from members of the defense bar and builders, the appellate record did not identify individual campaign contributions to the arbitrator’s campaigns. The court therefore had no evidentiary basis from which an objective observer could infer a meaningful connection between campaign support and the participants in the arbitration.
The fact that the arbitrator had expressed views on political, social, or legal subjects did not itself demonstrate partiality. An arbitrator’s public views are not equivalent to a financial, professional, or personal relationship with a party or counsel. Nor did deletion or deidentification of online material transform that material into evidence of partiality where the underlying content lacked a case-specific connection.
The court likewise rejected the contention that the challenged award itself showed bias. An unfavorable determination concerning credibility, damages, alter ego, or individual liability is not a substitute for evidence satisfying a statutory vacatur ground. Courts reviewing arbitration awards do not reconsider the merits merely because a party contends that the arbitrator discounted testimony or reached the wrong result.
As to the remaining grounds, the court applied the TAA’s limited-review framework. The record did not establish that the arbitrator acted outside the authority conferred by the arbitration agreement and submission. Public policy was not an independent statutory basis for vacatur. And nothing in the TAA imposed a categorical obligation on an arbitrator to disclose plans to seek public office.
Holding
The court held that Simpson did not establish evident partiality under § 171.088(a)(2)(A). Political commentary, prior campaigns, social-media activity, and an intent to seek public office do not create a reasonable impression of partiality when they lack an objective connection to the parties, counsel, witnesses, or dispute.
The court also held that Simpson failed to show that the arbitrator exceeded her powers. The asserted errors did not demonstrate that the arbitrator decided matters outside the authority granted by the arbitration agreement or the parties’ submission.
The court further held that public policy is not an independent ground for vacating an award under the TAA. A court may not use a general public-policy objection to expand the statute’s limited grounds for judicial review.
Finally, the court held that the TAA does not require an arbitrator to disclose an intent to run for public office. Without a case-specific relationship that would create a reasonable impression of partiality, political ambition alone does not trigger a disclosure duty.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the judgment confirming the arbitration award.
Practical Application
For family-law litigators, Simpson emphasizes that arbitrator vetting should occur before appointment—not after an unfavorable award. Counsel should investigate publicly available professional biographies, campaign filings, judicial applications, publications, social-media accounts, prior appointments, and relationships with attorneys or experts during the selection process. If a concern arises, counsel should request supplemental disclosures and obtain a ruling before proceeding.
A political or policy position becomes more significant when it is tied to a participant or issue in the arbitration. For example, further inquiry may be warranted if an arbitrator received material campaign support from a party, counsel, expert, closely held business, or aligned organization; had a professional or financial relationship with a spouse’s valuation expert; repeatedly served as mediator or arbitrator for one firm; or had undisclosed dealings with an entity whose ownership or value is being adjudicated. Those facts are materially different from generalized political commentary.
In a divorce arbitration involving characterization and division of the marital estate, counsel should define the arbitrator’s powers with precision. The arbitration agreement should identify whether the arbitrator may decide characterization, tracing, reimbursement, fraud on the community, valuation dates, tax allocation, attorney’s fees, sanctions, and post-award clarification. A later assertion that the arbitrator “exceeded her powers” will ordinarily turn on the written scope of the parties’ submission, not whether the arbitrator allegedly made a legal or factual error.
In conservatorship or possession arbitration, counsel must account for the Family Code’s best-interest requirements. Section 153.0071 provides a family-law-specific procedure under which the trial court may assess whether an arbitration award concerning the parent-child relationship is in the child’s best interest. That inquiry is distinct from TAA evident-partiality review. Counsel should preserve both tracks when applicable: any statutory challenge to the arbitrator’s neutrality and the Family Code procedure governing the child’s best interest.
In a case involving a marital agreement, business entity, trust, or third-party contractual claim, counsel also should determine which arbitration statute and contractual provisions govern. The parties’ agreement may affect arbitrability, the scope of submission, available remedies, selection procedures, and disclosure obligations. It cannot safely be assumed, however, that a broad public-policy objection will authorize merits review after the award.
Finally, lawyers should build an appellate record. A non-evidentiary hearing may leave a movant unable to prove disputed relationships, contributions, communications, or financial interests. Websites, screenshots, campaign reports, and social-media materials should be authenticated when necessary, and the alleged connection to the arbitration should be demonstrated through admissible evidence rather than inference alone.
Checklists
Before Selecting a Family-Law Arbitrator
- Review the proposed arbitrator’s written disclosures.
- Search prior cases, arbitration appointments, mediations, publications, firm biographies, campaign filings, and publicly available social-media accounts.
- Identify prior relationships with the parties, counsel, experts, business entities, trustees, receivers, amicus counsel, and material witnesses.
- Determine whether the arbitrator has a financial interest in any entity affected by the dispute.
- Ask whether the arbitrator has repeatedly served one party, law firm, insurer, business, or expert.
- Request supplemental written disclosures concerning any identified concern.
- Obtain the parties’ written agreement to the arbitrator only after completing reasonable diligence.
- Preserve objections before the hearing begins.
Drafting the Arbitration Agreement or Submission
- Identify whether the TAA, Federal Arbitration Act, Family Code, or another statutory scheme applies.
- Define the claims and issues submitted to arbitration.
- State whether the arbitrator may decide arbitrability and jurisdictional questions.
- Address property characterization, tracing, reimbursement, valuation, tax consequences, and fraud-on-the-community claims.
- Specify the arbitrator’s authority concerning conservatorship, possession, child support, and other parent-child issues.
- Address attorney’s fees, costs, sanctions, interest, and allocation of arbitration expenses.
- Establish procedures for supplemental disclosures and objections.
- State whether the arbitrator may clarify or correct the award.
- Include deadlines and procedures for seeking clarification, modification, confirmation, or vacatur.
- Avoid assuming that contractual language can create appellate review beyond what Texas law permits.
Evaluating an Evident-Partiality Concern
- Identify the precise fact that allegedly should have been disclosed.
- Determine whether the fact involves a party, attorney, witness, expert, affiliated entity, or subject of the dispute.
- Distinguish generalized political or legal views from a personal, professional, or financial relationship.
- Assess whether an objective observer—not merely the disappointed party—would reasonably perceive partiality.
- Determine whether the information is material rather than trivial.
- Investigate whether campaign contributions or political support can be linked to an arbitration participant.
- Examine the timing, frequency, and financial significance of any relationship.
- Determine when the information became known and whether the objection was promptly raised.
- Avoid relying solely on the result of the arbitration as evidence of bias.
Preserving a Motion to Vacate
- Plead a specific statutory ground under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 171.088.
- File the motion within the applicable statutory deadline.
- Attach the arbitration agreement, disclosure materials, award, and relevant correspondence.
- Obtain and preserve the arbitration record if the challenged ground depends on what occurred during the hearing.
- Request an evidentiary hearing when proof of disputed facts is necessary.
- Authenticate online materials, campaign records, social-media evidence, and financial documents.
- Establish the connection between the undisclosed fact and the parties, counsel, witnesses, or dispute.
- Secure findings or rulings necessary to preserve the appellate complaint.
- Do not frame alleged legal or factual error as evident partiality without supporting evidence.
- Address confirmation of the award as well as vacatur, modification, or correction.
Handling Child-Related Arbitration
- Confirm that the written arbitration agreement complies with the Family Code.
- Separate TAA vacatur issues from the trial court’s best-interest review.
- Identify the evidence necessary for a non-jury best-interest hearing under Family Code § 153.0071.
- Preserve objections concerning conservatorship, possession, access, child support, and family violence.
- Determine whether emergency or temporary orders remain necessary pending confirmation.
- Ensure the final order accurately reflects any award the court is required or authorized to confirm.
- Preserve a record supporting any contention that the award is not in the child’s best interest.
Citation
Simpson v. Artillery Construction, LLC, No. 14-25-00301-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 22, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The procedural mechanism is a motion to vacate an arbitration award under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 171.088(a)(2)(A), followed by de novo appellate review of the order confirming or vacating the award. To obtain vacatur for evident partiality, the movant must prove that a neutral arbitrator failed to disclose facts that would create, in an objective observer, a reasonable impression of partiality. The inquiry is case-specific and ordinarily requires a meaningful connection between the undisclosed fact and the parties, counsel, witnesses, financial interests, or dispute.
In a Texas family-law matter, the issue could arise after arbitration of marital-property characterization, business valuation, reimbursement, enforcement of a marital agreement, attorney’s fees, or other submitted disputes. It also may arise in arbitration affecting the parent-child relationship, although the Family Code’s separate best-interest procedure must be considered. A trial court reviewing the award does not conduct a general merits appeal or vacate based on an abstract policy concern. The party challenging the award must invoke an authorized statutory procedure, present evidence supporting that ground, and distinguish an undisclosed relationship suggesting partiality from an arbitrator’s generalized political, professional, or legal views.
~~b77b08f8-f51f-4f0c-9157-a95cbc016035~~
Share this content: