Written by Admin | Jun 25, 2017 5:00:00 AM
CHICAGOLAWBULLETIN.COM THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017 ® Volume 163, No. 121 Serving Chicago’s legal community for 162 years Family law arbitration can be quick, but also damaging to loser D ue to the unique and the trial court to reject the main- for resolving disputes. enduring dynamics be- tenance award and the finding that MODERN FAMILY Perhaps recognizing this more tween litigants in fam- the husband’s business interests limited standard of review, the ily law cases, practi- were nonmarital property. wife in Ha l e a s did not attempt to tioners have been de- Finding that the arbitration argue that the award should be veloping myriad ways for clients award was not unconscionable, vacated or modified under Sec- to resolve disputes outside of the trial court confirmed the ar- tions 12 or 13 of the Arbitration court —both while a case is bitration award and entered a fi- JOS H UA M. Ac t . pending, but also for disputes that nal judgment for dissolution of JAC KS O N Instead, she argued that the ap- are likely to arise after the case marriage incorporating the award. pellate court’s review need not be co n c l u d e s . The wife appealed. confined to the limited standard Often, dispute resolution proce- In Illinois, the typical standard Joshua M. Jackson is a partner at under the Arbitration Act; she al- dures are part of the parties’final of review applicable to a trial Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP. Joshua so argued that since the matter settlement agreement. Mediation court decision for an appeal is has focused his practice exclusively on the concerned dissolution of marriage, appears to be the most popular that a trial court would be re- litigation and negotiation of complex the award should be vacated as a divorce matters, representing clients discipline. However, following the versed for making a material mis- matter of public policy. including public figures, lawyers, 2nd District Appellate Court’s re- take of law or for abusing its dis- business owners, executives, professionals, However, since Ha l e a s did not cent opinion in In re Marriage of cretion. Under the Illinois Uni- and their spouses. He can be reached at involve child-related issues such Ha l e a s , 2017 IL App (2d) 160799, form Arbitration Act, however, the j jackson@sdflaw.com. as allocation of parenting respon- practitioners may begin to more standard of review of an arbitra- sibilities or child support, where seriously consider arbitration as tion award on appeal is signif- and the award can be corrected the law significantly limits the an effective means to resolve fam- icantly more limited. without impacting the merits of ability of parties to contract away ily law disputes. Sections 12 and 13 of the Ar- the decision on the issues sub- their rights on public policy In a case of first impression, the bitration Act govern the standard mitted; or (3) the award was im- grounds, her policy argument Ha l e a s court confirmed that an for vacating or modifying arbitra- perfect in a matter of form, not fa i l e d . a rb i t rat o r ’s award concerning tion awards (710 ILCS 5/12, 710 affecting the merits of the con- The wife in Ha l e a s cited no au- spousal maintenance and proper- ILCS 5/13). Under Section 12, the t rove rs y. thority supporting her suggestion ty division is enforceable in di- court shall vacate the arbitrator’s Emphasizing that when parties that a more permissive judicial vorce proceedings. The court also award only if (1) the award was agree to binding arbitration, they review should apply, nor did she highlighted implications of choos- procured by “corruption, fraud or “bargain for finality,”the Ha l e a s expressly argue that an arbitra- ing to arbitrate —most notably other undue means”; (2) the ar- court ruled that a court cannot tion award resolving maintenance the limited appellate review of ar- bitrator was corrupt or evidently overturn an arbitrator’s award and property division is void of bitration awards. partial to one party or some mis- even if “(1) it is illogical or in- public policy. The parties in Ha l e a s were mar- conduct prejudiced the rights of a consistent, (2) the arbitrator made Regardless, the court found no ried for less than eight years party; (3) the arbitrator exceeded errors of judgment or mistakes of authority to support an argument when the husband initiated di- his or her power; (4) the arbi- law, or (3) the court would have against applying the Arbitration vorce proceedings. Prior to trial, trator refused to postpone the reached a different result.” Ac t’s limited standard of review to the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of maintenance and prop- with former judge Michele erty division. Finding that none of Lowrance concerning mainte- Regardless, the court found no authority to the grounds in Sections 12 or 13 of nance, property division (includ- the Arbitration Act existed to va- support an argument against applying the ing the character of the husband’s cate or modify the award, the ap- ownership interest in two banking Arbitration Act’s limited standard of review … pellate court affirmed the trial entities) and other issues. After co u r t’s decision. five days of hearing and “a sub- The Ha l e a s opinion provides stantial amount of evidence and hearing upon good cause shown An arbitrator’s decision may, guidance to family law practition- t e s t i m o ny,”the arbitrator issued a or failed to hear material evi- however, be set aside if it contains ers inasmuch as it confirms that 70-page decision, awarding the dence; or (5) there was no agree- a“gross mistake”—one so sig- arbitration awards concerning husband the banking entities as ment to arbitrate. nificant that a reviewing court maintenance and property divi- his nonmarital property, rejecting Section 13 of the Arbitration may presume that the arbitrator sion will be upheld with a limited the wife’s arguments concerning Act provides that a court shall would have reached a different re- standard of review. the husband’s income and award- modify or correct the award only sult had he or she been informed Therefore, in a practice area ing the wife maintenance for a if (1) there was an obvious mis- of the mistake. where parties too often have on- fixed, nonreviewable term of 37 calculation of figures or erroneous This limited scope of review of going differences and dispute res- months. description of any person, thing or an arbitrator’s award supports the olution procedures are being uti- The husband then petitioned the property referenced in the award; legislative policy favoring arbitra- lized more frequently, arbitration trial court to confirm the arbitra- (2) the arbitrator ruled on a mat- tion as an expeditious, informal, can provide a swift and final pro- tor’s decision and the wife asked ter not submitted to arbitration, inexpensive and final procedure cess for resolution. Copyright © 2017 Law Bulletin Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission from Law Bulletin Publishing Company.