FAMILY LAW
20-2- 9106 Biser v. Levine, App. Div. (per curiam) (30 pp.)
The parties, both attorneys, were divorced in 1999. Thereafter, they engaged in a high volume of litigation, resulting in 30 orders from eight different judges. In a 2007 consent order, they agreed: to arbitrate their issues concerning alimony, child support and allocation of expenses for college and graduate/professional school for their three children; to appoint a retired trial judge as arbitrator; and that the arbitrator's decision would be reviewable by a retired Appellate Division judge. Subject to that review, they agreed to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. The parties then engaged in over three years of arbitration during which the arbitrator issued more than 10 letter opinions and five orders. The retired Appellate Division judge issued an 80-page opinion after both parties appealed the arbitrator's final decision. On Jan. 10, 2014, the Family Part granted defendant's motion to emancipate the son, by the consent of the parties, and ordered plaintiff to pay counsel fees for forcing defendant to file the motion. It also ordered defendant to pay one-half of the older daughter's medical school expenses. On March 11, 2014, the Family Part, reconsidering its Jan. 10 ruling, found that the arbitrator and appellate arbitrator exceeded their authority and violated public policy if they required the parties to pay for the older daughter's medical school expenses, as she had been emancipated. The court vacated the final arbitration award to the extent it could be interpreted to obligate the parties to pay higher education costs for an emancipated child and ordered that the final arbitration award be confirmed in all other respects. Plaintiff appealed those orders; defendant cross-appealed. The panel found that neither the arbitrator nor the appellate arbitrator exceeded his authority or power by issuing an award requiring defendant to pay 50 percent of the children's graduate school expenses. Further, the parties had agreed in the consent order that the arbitrator should decide the allocation of graduate/professional school expenses for the three children, and though the parties did not expressly agree whether that would include emancipated children, their broad agreement cautioned against finding that the arbitrator violated public policy. Accordingly, the panel found that because the arbitrator's award was reasonably debatable, intervention was unwarranted, and it reversed the court's voiding of the arbitrator's order that defendant contribute to their daughter's graduate education. It also reversed the court's award of attorney fees because defendant did not actually pay fees to his attorney, who was also his wife, and reimbursement based on the income she lost because she could have spent her time working for other clients instead was not permitted. It affirmed in all other respects.