Confirmation or vacatur of arbitration award; MCR 3.602; Kilpatrick v Lansing Cmty Coll; Waiver of standing challenge in arbitration; MCR 2.116(D)(4); Leite v Dow Chem Co; Review limited to facial legal error; Eppel v Eppel; Timeliness; MCR 3.602(J)

The court held that the trial court properly confirmed the arbitration award and did not err by denying defendants’ motion to vacate because they failed to show a material legal error apparent on the face of the award or that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. The dispute stemmed from a family land-contract transaction involving three parcels, later bankruptcy and foreclosure events, and a forfeiture action that the parties agreed to submit, along with multiple related cases, to arbitration under an agreement requiring the arbitrator to apply Michigan substantive law. After the arbitrator found defendants had not paid the balloon balance and set a redemption amount, they sought to vacate, arguing the award was procured by fraud and later asserting plaintiff lacked standing and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction. They also challenged the arbitrator’s orders requiring payment into escrow and addressing how the deed would be handled. The arbitrator concluded defendants waived the standing challenge because they did not timely raise it by motion or as an affirmative defense, pursued a counterclaim, participated in the arbitration, and first raised standing more than a year after the initial award. He alternatively determined plaintiff had standing as a vendor to have her rights adjudicated. On appeal from the trial court’s subsequent confirmation judgment, the court reiterated that arbitration review is highly constrained, noting factual findings are not reviewable, and relief is available only when there is a legal error of such materiality that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and the error is readily apparent on the face of the award. The court rejected defendants’ “standing can be raised at any time” argument, explaining that the court rules have since been amended and now permit certain dispositive grounds to be raised “at any time” only subject to scheduling-order limits and trial-court discretion, making the arbitrator’s waiver determination consistent with Michigan law in the procedural posture presented. It also held that the escrow directive could not justify vacatur because, even assuming error, eliminating escrow would not yield “a substantially different award” where payment would still be required, and defendants similarly failed to identify a facial legal error in including the nonappealing vendee on the deed given the contract’s treatment of all vendees collectively as the “Purchaser” and the arbitrator’s recognition that contribution disputes were better addressed in the remaining quiet-title or partition proceedings. Affirmed.