with the reasoning of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Kowler Associates that to allow appeal of a denial of confirmation when a rehearing has also been ordered would render the statutory language “without directing a rehearing,” Stolhandske v. Stern, 14 S.W.3d at 331 n.2, without effect. In Stolhandske, as in the case before us, the lower court vacated the arbitration award and ordered a new arbitration but did not rule on a motion to confirm the award. The Texas Court of Appeals noted that “[t]he vacating of an arbitration award does not automatically deny a motion to confirm, but renders the consideration of an application to confirm moot.” Stolhandske v. Stern, 14 S.W.2d 810, 815 (Tex. App. 2000). Compare, National Ave. Bldg. Co. v. Stewart, 910 S.W.2d 334, 341 (Mo. App. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Air Shield Remodelers, Inc. v. Biggs, 969
holding that a request made within 180 days of a modified confirmation order  entered three months after the original confirmation order  but more than 180 days after the original confirmation order was timebarred holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable holding appealable order which explicitly denied confirmation vacated award and directed rehearing but stating that we do not imply the order would have been appealable absent the provision denying confirmation holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable holding that when it is apparent that an order confirming or denying confirmation of an arbitration award does not represent the conclusion of the proceeding on the merits it lacks the quality of finality  and is not appealable