Divorce; The Domestic Relations Arbitration Act (DRAA); Motion to vacate the arbitration award; MCL 600.5081(2); Krist v Krist; Evident partiality by the arbitrator; Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers; Washington v Washington; Refusal to hear material evidence; Arbitrator’s failure to hold a hearing after issuing the opinion; Due process & entry of the divorce judgment; The court’s jurisdiction; “Final order”; Treating an appeal as application for leave to appeal

The court found no basis to overturn the arbitration award under MCL 600.5081(2)(b)-(d), and no merit to plaintiff-ex-wife’s due process claim related to entry of the divorce judgment. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s denial of her motion to vacate the arbitration award and its entry of the divorce judgment. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to vacate the arbitration award. She first contended “there was evident partiality by the arbitrator.” The court disagreed, rejecting her claim “that the arbitrator refused to address her issues; rather, the record reflects that the arbitrator considered her arguments and did not find them worthy of credence.” The record showed “the arbitrator repeatedly addressed and provided reasons grounded in fact for its rejection of plaintiff’s arguments.” Among other things, the court found no “evident bias from the arbitrator’s handling of plaintiff’s requests for an accounting.” And belying her assertion that none “was ever provided, the arbitrator acknowledged that an accounting regarding the [5/22] term sheet, as ordered by the trial court, had been provided.” The court also held that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers. Related to disposition of assets and liabilities associated with the parties’ business interests, by writing in support of her brother’s “offer, plaintiff accepted competitive bidding as a method for valuing and dividing these business assets. [She] may not now complain about the valuation method.” As to her claim that the arbitrator refused to hear evidence, the court rejected her argument to the extent she asserted she was entitled to a formal hearing. As to her contention “that she was entitled to a hearing, even if informal, after the arbitrator’s” 6/29/22 opinion, the court observed that she “received multiple hearings in this case. The arbitrator held over a dozen hearings and conferences. The arbitrator also issued multiple rulings addressing plaintiff’s motions, even if a hearing was not held. Declining to hold additional hearings does not equate with a refusal to hear evidence material to the controversy.” Finally, as to the entry of the judgment, plaintiff “agreed to binding arbitration of all issues in the divorce and that a judgment of divorce comporting with the arbitrator’s decisions would enter—which is what occurred. Accordingly, [her] consent was unnecessary and no due process violation occurred.”