Law Lessons from SCHWITZER v. SCHWITZER (App. Div., A-22-04T1, January 25, 2006, not approved for publication):

The Supreme Court has recognized that “arbitration of matrimonial disputes may offer an effective alternative method of dispute resolution.” Faherty v. Faherty, 97 N.J. 99, 107 (1984); see also Chen v. Chen, 297 N.J. Super. 480, 489 (App. Div. 1997). In Faherty, the Court noted that the advantages of arbitration in domestic relations cases include: “reduced court congestion, the opportunity for resolution of sensitive matters in a private and informal forum, reduction of the trauma and anxiety of marital litigation, minimization of the intense polarization of the parties that often occurs, and the ability to choose the arbitrator.” Id. at 107-08.

In Tretina Printing, Inc. v. Fitzpatrick & Assocs., Inc., 135 N.J. 349 (1994), the Court adopted the rule governing judicial review of arbitration set forth in Chief Justice Wilentz’s concurring opinion in Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479, 496 (1992):
Basically, arbitration awards may be vacated only for fraud, corruption, or similar wrongdoing on the part of the arbitrators. [They] can be corrected or modified only for very specifically defined mistakes as set forth in [N.J.S.A. 2A:24-9]. If the arbitrators decide a matter not even submitted to them, that matter can be excluded from the award.

[Tretina, supra, 135 N.J. at 358 (alterations in original) (quoting Perini, supra, 129 N.J. at 548 (Wilentz, C.J., concurring)).]

Thus, a court may vacate an arbitration award only on the narrow grounds specified in N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8:
The court shall vacate the award in any of the following cases:
a. Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means;
b. Where there was either evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or any thereof;
c. Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause being shown therefor, or in refusing to hear evidence, pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any other misbehaviors prejudicial to the rights of any party;
d. Where the arbitrators exceeded or so imperfectly executed their powers that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
[Ibid. (emphasis added).]

Where parties voluntarily agree to arbitration, the “arbitrator’s jurisdiction . . . hinges upon ‘what the . . . parties to the contract have agreed should be submitted to arbitration.’” Chen, supra, 297 N.J. Super. at 489 (quoting Laborers’ Local Union v. Interstate Curb & Sidewalk, 90 N.J. 456, 463 (1982)).

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Morris counties in NJ.

Technorati Tags: , and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin