Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-19-2024
Case Style:
Stuart Brain Carlin v. Sarah Fink Carlin
Case Number: 2021-507469
Judge: Not Available
Court: Circuit Court, Oakland County, Michigan
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Pontiac, Michigan divorce lawyers represented Plaintiff and Defendant in a marriage dissolution.
Stuart and Sarah married on October 1, 2011 after signing a prenuptial agreement that reserved to themselves certain property and any increase in value of that property. The couple had three children between 2013 and 2016. The parties began a divorce action in April 2019, but ultimately dismissed the case. Then, Stuart filed a complaint for divorce in June 2021, and Sarah filed a counterclaim for divorce. From the outset, the divorce litigation was contentious, but the parties ultimately agreed to share joint legal and physical custody of their children and to split parenting time equally. The parties also agreed to submit other issues related to their divorce to binding arbitration.
* * *
Issues involving the interpretation of Michigan's domestic relations arbitration act (DRAA), MCL 600.5070 et seq., are reviewed de novo. Miller v Miller, 474 Mich. 27, 30; 707 N.W.2d 341 (2005). We also review de novo a trial court's decision to deny a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award. Washington v Washington, 283 Mich.App. 667, 671; 770 N.W.2d 908 (2009). However, judicial review of domestic relation arbitration awards is "extremely limited." Id. When parties agree to binding arbitration, courts must usually enforce the award. MCL 600.5079(1). As this Court explained in Krist v Krist, 246 Mich.App. 59, 66-67; 631 N.W.2d 53 (2001):
Pursuant to MCR 3.602, parties are conclusively bound by a binding arbitrator's decision absent a showing [1] that the award was procured by duress or fraud, [2] that the arbitrator or another is guilty of corruption or misconduct that prejudiced the party's rights, [3] that the arbitrator exceeded his powers, or [4] that the arbitrator refused to hear material evidence, refused to postpone the hearing on a showing of sufficient cause, or conducted the hearing in a manner that substantially prejudiced a party's rights.
Courts may not review an arbitrator's findings of fact, and legal errors must be apparent on the face of the award. Washington, 283 Mich.App. at 672. Further, a court may only grant relief if, "but for the error, the award would have been substantially different." Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
* *
Carlin v. Carlin, 366649 (Mich. App. Sep 19, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: