Divorce; Property division; Sparks v Sparks; Berger v Berger; Spousal support; Loutts v Loutts; Motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award; Washington v Washington

Concluding that defendant-ex-husband did not identify any actionable error by the arbitrator, the court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to vacate the arbitrator’s property or spousal support awards in this divorce case. The parties agreed to binding arbitration. As to the property division, defendant alleged “the arbitrator exceeded his authority by failing to apply controlling Michigan law because he did not address the Sparks factors when dividing the marital estate. This is incorrect. The arbitrator expressly cited Sparks in the arbitration award, as well as other caselaw applicable to the equitable distribution of marital property. While the arbitrator did not formally label them as belonging to Sparks, the award” showed that he considered these factors in dividing the marital property. Defendant also contended “the distribution of the marital estate was inequitable because he had no legal interest in the rental properties.” The court noted that his “argument turns on an alleged factual error made by the arbitrator.” The court “‘may not review the arbitrator’s findings of fact,’ and defendant” did not allege any “actual error of law that is ‘discernable on the face of the award itself.’” Further, it saw “no legal error on the award’s face in failing to consider an alleged debt that was never proven, let alone presented, during the actual arbitration proceedings[.]” As to owed income taxes, “with no discernable legal error on” the face of the award, the court would “‘not engage in a review of [the] arbitrator’s mental path’ as to why the income taxes for defendant’s business were not factored into the award.” As to the spousal support award, defendant asserted “the arbitrator erred by (1) not imputing enough income to plaintiff, (2) imputing too much income to defendant, and (3) failing to consider that plaintiff did not show, and did not have, any need for spousal support given the substantial property award she would receive in addition to her own earning capacity.” The court noted that while he again tried “to frame these alleged errors” as ones of law, they were “actually factual determinations by the arbitrator that” evaded review. He did not allege any “legal errors” warranting relief. Affirmed.