Divorce; Motion to vacate a domestic-relations arbitration award on the basis of domestic violence; Waiver of objections to arbitration; Spousal support; Divorce settlement agreement limitation on an auto expense deduction in determining a party’s business & personal income; Calculation of a party’s effective tax rate

The court concluded the trial court properly denied plaintiff-ex-wife’s “motion to vacate the arbitration award on the basis of domestic violence.” Also, the trial court did not err “by failing to vacate or correct the substantive errors in the award related to the vehicle expense and defendant’s effective tax rate.” Plaintiff argued “that the trial court erred by denying her motion to vacate the arbitration award because she was not represented by counsel during the arbitration process and the arbitrator failed to implement appropriate safeguards and protections in light of the history of domestic violence.” The court noted that she “initiated the arbitration process to dispute the spousal support and property offset calculations, and she actively participated unrepresented by counsel. She retained counsel and sought to vacate the arbitration proceeding on the basis of domestic violence only after the clarified final opinion was entered.” The court also found no merit in her claim “that the arbitrator exceeded his authority because he failed to conduct the arbitration in a caucus-like format in which the parties were to remain in separate rooms. Although the 2020 arbitration agreement stated that ‘each party is in a separate room for these proceedings, and each party therefore does not feel threatened or intimidated by the other or by these proceedings,’ it also stated, ‘The parties specifically agree that [the Arbitrator] may hear testimony in separate rooms.’ This clear and unambiguous language leaves the issue of caucus-like arbitration proceedings to the arbitrator’s discretion.” There was “no evidence on the face of the award that the arbitrator violated the terms of the arbitration agreement, or that, but for any such alleged error, the award would have been substantially different.” Further, the court noted that “plaintiff fully and actively participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising any objections to the format of the proceedings, which constitutes a waiver.” Affirmed.