Nicholas Sharp and Barry and RhondaDowney own adjacent tracts of land, andfor almost eight years, they have been engaged in litigation over land and easementrights. One tract of land involved in the dispute was landlocked and the other was not,with the main issue being whether therewas an easement for the landlocked property and where that easement would belocated. At the end of the eight years, theyagreed to submit their issues for bindingarbitration.The arbitrator reached a decision thatresulted in the granting of an implied easement to one owner but not to the owner ofthe landlocked property. The arbitrator foundthat the landlocked property did not need animplied easement. Further, the arbitrator'sdecision on the location of the easementresulted in an easement that was notactually connected on the land. When oneparty moved for the court to set aside thedecision of the arbitrator as an "arbitrary,irrational decision in manifest disregard ofthe law," the court agreed and stated that"While parties to arbitration agree to acceptthe arbitrator's interpretation of the law,this does not mean that they agree to permit the arbitrator to fabricate the law fromwhole cloth." [Sharp v Downey, 13 A.3d 1(Md. App. 2010)] The case was appealedto the Maryland Supreme Court on thegrounds that an arbitration award cannot beset aside when there are factual issues thatcould have influenced the arbitrator's decision. What should the Maryland SupremeCourt do?

Also, how can you use this information to benefit yourself and others? And, what would you recommend if you were in this situation?