This appeal was filed by Kamriz Azordegan a/k/a Kambiz Azordegan, Farrah H. Azordegan, and Farrah H. Azordegan and Kamriz Azordegan as trustees of the Azordegan Family Trust collectively, hereinafter, Azordegan. Azordegan contests a superior court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. In deciding whether to confirm or vacate an arbitration award, a trial court’s role is severely curtailed so as not to frustrate the purpose of avoiding litigation. Unless one of the statutory grounds for vacating an award as set forth in OCGA § 9-9-13 b is found to exist, a trial court in reviewing an award is bound to confirm it. Moreover, . . . we will not disturb a trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award unless the existence of any of the statutory grounds is shown.1 Because Azordegan has failed to make the required showing, we affirm. 1. As an initial matter, we note the paucity of the record before us. Pertinently, in the notice of appeal, Azordegan stated, “There is no transcript of evidence and proceedings to be filed for inclusion in the Record on Appeal.”2 Our consideration of the contentions presented by Azordegan —who, as appellant, has the burden to affirmatively show error by the record3 —is affected by the meagerness of the record.
2. Azordegan maintains that the arbitrator’s award should have been vacated, relying solely on the ground set forth in OCGA § 9-9-13 b 3, which provides that the award shall be vacated if the court finds that a party’s rights were prejudiced by “an overstepping by the arbitrators of their authority or such imperfect execution of it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” More particularly, Azordegan asserts that the arbitrator’s authority was imperfectly executed because the award failed to set forth certain explicit findings. However, the Georgia “Arbitration Code does not require that an arbitrator enter written findings of fact in support of an award; nor does the Code require an arbitrator to explain the reasoning behind an award.”4 For that reason, and because of circumstances set forth below, Azordegan has failed to establish that the arbitrator’s execution of his authority was so imperfect that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
