Family Law

Listmates,

Here is a good example of a properly upheld arbitration award, challenged by a dissatisfied party, for reasons that amount to "if you wanted it done this way, you should have said so in your Agreement to Arbitrate".  Right result.

Read NJLJ online description below of per curiam (and unpublished) opinion.

Hanan

FAMILY LAW | ARBITRATION
20-2-9449 Little v. Little, App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Following 25 years of marriage, plaintiff Donna Ivery-Little filed for divorce against defendant Paul Little. As part of her complaint, plaintiff asserted a Tevis claim, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained for spousal abuse and battered woman's syndrome. The Tevis claim was severed from the divorce action. The parties, represented by counsel, agreed to submit the Tevis claim to binding arbitration before a retired judge. Plaintiff's submissions to the arbitrator included a letter that defendant had written to plaintiff after she had filed for divorce. Plaintiff's counsel also submitted a report prepared by a psychiatrist, which offered an opinion that plaintiff suffered from battered woman's syndrome. The arbitrator issued a two-page written arbitration decision and awarded plaintiff $125,000. The award did not set forth any findings of fact or conclusions of law, but it did reference defendant's 2010 letter. On appeal, defendant argued that the arbitration award was against public policy, because without findings of fact and conclusions of law, it could not be determined if the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. Defendant also argued that the arbitrator's reliance on the letter, which was produced after the close of discovery in the Law Division action, constituted undue means. The appellate panel rejected these arguments and affirmed, finding nothing occurred that was inconsistent with the Arbitration Act. The scope of arbitration and the requirements of an arbitrator are controlled by contract. If the arbitration agreement does not require the arbitrator to make specific factual findings or follow particular procedures, the arbitrator is free to make an award in a manner consistent with the Arbitration Act. The parties did not impose any procedural or substantive requirements on the arbitration process or direct the arbitrator to announce the award in any particular manner. Thus, the arbitrator was not required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Moreover, the public policy of New Jersey favors arbitration, and it is not inconsistent to allow the arbitrator's broad scope, because if parties want to have specific findings of facts and conclusions of law, they are free to contract to do so. Nor did the arbitrator's reliance on defendant's letter to plaintiff constitute undue means. Arbitrators are not bound by the rules of evidence, and the parties agreed to arbitrate the Tevis claim after the discovery end date had passed in the Law Division case.

(Emphasis added)

Listmates,

Here is a good example of a properly upheld arbitration award, challenged by a dissatisfied party, for reasons that amount to "if you wanted it done this way, you should have said so in your Agreement to Arbitrate".  Right result.

Read NJLJ online description below of per curiam (and unpublished) opinion.

Hanan

FAMILY LAW | ARBITRATION
20-2-9449 Little v. Little, App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Following 25 years of marriage, plaintiff Donna Ivery-Little filed for divorce against defendant Paul Little. As part of her complaint, plaintiff asserted a Tevis claim, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained for spousal abuse and battered woman's syndrome. The Tevis claim was severed from the divorce action. The parties, represented by counsel, agreed to submit the Tevis claim to binding arbitration before a retired judge. Plaintiff's submissions to the arbitrator included a letter that defendant had written to plaintiff after she had filed for divorce. Plaintiff's counsel also submitted a report prepared by a psychiatrist, which offered an opinion that plaintiff suffered from battered woman's syndrome. The arbitrator issued a two-page written arbitration decision and awarded plaintiff $125,000. The award did not set forth any findings of fact or conclusions of law, but it did reference defendant's 2010 letter. On appeal, defendant argued that the arbitration award was against public policy, because without findings of fact and conclusions of law, it could not be determined if the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. Defendant also argued that the arbitrator's reliance on the letter, which was produced after the close of discovery in the Law Division action, constituted undue means. The appellate panel rejected these arguments and affirmed, finding nothing occurred that was inconsistent with the Arbitration Act. The scope of arbitration and the requirements of an arbitrator are controlled by contract. If the arbitration agreement does not require the arbitrator to make specific factual findings or follow particular procedures, the arbitrator is free to make an award in a manner consistent with the Arbitration Act. The parties did not impose any procedural or substantive requirements on the arbitration process or direct the arbitrator to announce the award in any particular manner. Thus, the arbitrator was not required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Moreover, the public policy of New Jersey favors arbitration, and it is not inconsistent to allow the arbitrator's broad scope, because if parties want to have specific findings of facts and conclusions of law, they are free to contract to do so. Nor did the arbitrator's reliance on defendant's letter to plaintiff constitute undue means. Arbitrators are not bound by the rules of evidence, and the parties agreed to arbitrate the Tevis claim after the discovery end date had passed in the Law Division case.

(Emphasis added)

That's a great idea!