ALLI et al.
ULTRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.
Mumtaz Alli ("Alli") and Citgo Food Mart, Inc.
("Citgo" and collectively "Appellants")
appeal from the final judgment of the Superior Court of
Fulton County confirming an arbitration award (the
"Award") entered in arbitration proceedings brought
pursuant to OCGA § 50-27-102 and Georgia Lottery
Corporation Rule 13.2.10. The subject matter of the
arbitration proceedings concerned allegations of breach of
contract and failure to pay revenue allegedly owed by
Appellants to appellee Ultra Group of Companies, Inc.
("Ultra") under a Location License for the lease of
Coin Operated Amusement Machines ("COAMs") that
were located in Appellants' convenience store.
the confirmation proceedings and now on appeal,
Appellant Ali contends that the arbitrator lacked personal
jurisdiction over her because she was not named as a
respondent in the demand for arbitration or served the demand
as a respondent, and the demand and service filings show that
she participated in the proceedings only as a representative
of Citgo. However, Ultra argues the "correct"
demand for arbitration shows that Alli was named as a
respondent, that this demand was served upon her, the same
attorney who represented Citgo made an appearance on
Alli's behalf, and that her attorney filed a response and
counterclaim specifically on her behalf. Further, Ultra
argues that Alli did not raise the issue of personal
jurisdiction at anytime during the arbitration proceedings,
although she appeared at the hearing and challenged subject
filed a reply brief, pointing out that Ultra has failed to
include in the record on appeal any evidence that would
support its contentions about Alli being included on any
arbitration demand filed in these proceedings and being
served. Further, Alli continues to insist that she was not
listed in any arbitration demands, and that she was never
both set of facts cannot be true - Alli was either listed on
an arbitration demand, albeit on one we do not have in the
record before us, served with that demand, and represented
and participated in the arbitration proceedings as a party,
or she was not.
while Ultra's failing to perfect the record might be
fatal to its contentions, Alli has also failed to point to
anything in the record to show that she preserved these
arguments during the arbitration proceedings. See Court of
Appeals Rule 25 (a) (1) (requiring "a statement of the
method by which each enumeration of error was preserved for
consideration"). And it is well established that unlike
subject matter jurisdiction, challenges to personal
jurisdiction, including challenges to service, may be waived.
See Yeremian v. Ellis, 239 Ga.App. 805, 807 (1) (b)
(521 S.E.2d 596) (1999). However, while failure to raise this
issue before the arbitrator might be fatal to Alli's
claim and render Ultra's failure to perfect the record
irrelevant, the record is not clear on the matter. Appellants
also seem to acknowledge in their brief on appeal that this
issue was not raised before the arbitrator, urging that Alli
had no reason to challenge personal jurisdiction until after
the arbitrator entered its judgment jointly and severally
against her. However, it is apparent from the arbitration
hearing transcript and the arbitrator's final order that
other jurisdictional issues were raised, the question being
whether any challenge was made to personal jurisdictional
based on failure to name in the arbitration demand and
failure to serve.
Court is thus faced with the untenable situation of
attempting to render a decision in this case based on an
incomplete and possibly inaccurate record. Cf. Yeremian
v. Ellis, 239 Ga.App. at 807 (2) (assertion that
appellant not served with arbitration demand unavailing where
record clearly shows otherwise). Accordingly, in light of the
deficiencies by both parties in presenting their arguments to
this Court, the judgment of the superior court is vacated,
and the case remanded to give the parties an opportunity to
remedy these appellate record deficits by supplementing the
record with all the documents in the record before the
arbitrator that pertain to the personal jurisdiction issue
and preservation of this error for our consideration. Upon
completion of the record, the superior court may re-enter its
original order or enter a different order as it deems
appropriate. Any appeal from that order by either party must
be filed within 30 days, at which time any issues raised in
the present appeal may be reasserted.
 Appellants seek to vacate the
arbitration award under OCGA § 9-9-13 (b) (3) & (5),
which provides for vacating an arbitration award based on
overstepping or manifest disregard of the law.
 Although appellants have included
citations to the record immediately following their
enumeration of errors, none of these references reveal that
the issue of personal jurisdiction was raised before the
 As we have remarked on previous
occasions, "[o]ur requirements as to the form of
appellate briefs were created, not to provide an obstacle,
but to aid parties in presenting their arguments in a manner
most likely to be fully and and efficiently comprehended by
this Court." Aldalassi v. Drummond 223 Ga.App.
192 (1) (477 S.E.2d 372) (1996).
 Appellants also challenge the award of
liquidated damages. Although it appears more clear to us that
at least some of the arguments appellants now raise on appeal
were also made to the arbitrator about this issue, appellants
also have failed to include a statement of how this issue was
preserved and, accordingly, are also ...