Divorce; Motion to vacate an arbitration order & award; The Domestic Relations Arbitration Act (DRAA); MCL 600.5072(1); Whether the arbitration was invalid because the parties did not sign a separate arbitration or matrimonial agreement; Miller v Miller; Choice of arbitrator; MCL 600.5073; Timeliness of the motion to vacate; MCR 3.602(J)(3); Valentine v Valentine; Claim the award was procured through fraud; Matley v Matley; MCR 3.602(J)(3)

While the court found merit in plaintiff-ex-wife’s arguments that the requirements of MCL 600.5072(1) were not met and MCR 600.5073 was violated, her motion to vacate the arbitration order and award was filed long after MCR 3.602(J)(3)’s deadline. Pursuant to Valentine, the court concluded the order must be upheld even though it could be viewed as violating Michigan law. It disagreed with her argument that the arbitration was “invalid because the parties did not sign a separate arbitration or matrimonial agreement,” noting the Supreme Court determined in Miller that there is nothing in the DRAA mandating “‘there be an agreement separate from the stipulated order’ to arbitrate.” But the court found that the arbitration order here did not seem to satisfy the “‘minimal requirements’” of MCL 600.5072(1). It did “not indicate that arbitration was voluntary, that the outcome of the arbitration was binding and appellate review is limited, or that arbitration is not recommended for domestic violence and may not be appropriate in other domestic cases.” In addition, it barely acknowledged “the rights and duties of the arbitrator, and only counsel for the parties signed the order.” Further, there was no other record evidence suggesting MCL 600.5072’s requirements were met. As to the arbitrator, there was no dispute that he “was a CPA and not an ‘attorney in good standing with the state bar of Michigan.’” As a result, while “the parties initially stipulated to his appointment as their arbitrator, he did not meet the requirements to be appointed as an arbitrator by the [trial] court under” MCL 600.5073(2). But plaintiff’s motion to vacate was clearly untimely. In Valentine, the court rejected a party’s “claim that an order for arbitration was void ab initio, and thus had to be vacated” where the party’s objections fell outside the window set by the applicable court rule. The court determined it “must do the same in this case.” Finally, while plaintiff contended “the arbitration award should be invalidated because it was procured through fraud[,]” she failed to offer evidence that fraud was committed. Given “the lack of evidence of ‘corruption, fraud, or other undue means,’ MCR 3.602(J)(3), plaintiff’s failure to timely request that the arbitration award be vacated” precluded the court from granting her appellate relief. Affirmed.