Now Accepting New Clients!

DIVORCE 48: The trial court may only determine whether the parties’ agreement to arbitrate is ambiguous, not whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract was correct.


Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2013, and following mediation, the parties reached a transcribed mediation agreement in June 2014. The mediator read an outline of a property settlement agreement, the terms of which were to be incorporated into a written settlement agreement. If the parties could not agree on a contractual issue, it would be submitted to binding arbitration. Following hearings and witness testimony, the arbitrator issued an award.  Plaintiff moved to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator issued an award that was inconsistent with the agreements. The trial court ruled that the settlement agreement “speaks for itself” and that the four corners of the settlement agreement did not provide an accounting method for the property settlement payments. It opined that the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of her authority and granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.


We review de novo the trial court’s decision whether to enforce an arbitration award. We also review de novo whether an arbitrator exceeded his or her powers.  Areviewing court must accept the arbitrator’s factual findings and decisions on the merits, and it cannot engage in contractual interpretation because that is an issue reserved for the arbitrator.


Defendant argues that the trial court erred by vacating the arbitration award on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by looking outside the four corners of the settlement agreement, as the arbitration agreement expressly provided that the arbitrator would draft a separate contract to detail the settlement agreement’s terms. Defendant is correct that the parties granted the arbitrator authority to fashion a separate contract. We conclude that the trial court erred by engaging in contractual interpretation of the parties’ settlement agreement. The trial court is not permitted to interpret the underlying contract when reviewing an arbitration award. The reviewing court may only determine whether the parties’ agreement to arbitrate is ambiguous, not whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract was correct. When the trial court reviewed whether the parties’ contract was ambiguous, it again erroneously considered the merits of the arbitrator’s decision.


The trial court erred by determining that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of her authority by looking beyond the four corners of the parties’ settlement agreement. Because the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of her authority, the trial court’s review should have ended and the court should have confirmed the arbitration award.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have property settlement issues.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parties throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of divorce related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000