Cheryl Schleif v. John Schleif (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONFIRM AWARD (No. 168);  PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING AWARD (No. 169) and DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO OPEN, SET ASIDE AND VACATE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION (No. 171)

A judgment dissolving the parties' marriage entered on April 21, 2009 (Entry No. 140).   Approximately twenty postjudgment motions have been filed by the parties since the dissolution.   The docket entries reveal that some of those motions were resolved or withdrawn.   On May 23, 2011, the parties appeared at a family calendar and presented an agreement (No. 162) which provided:  (1) that the parties would share the cost of their son's summer camp, (2) that the parties would share the cost of the college education of their daughter Renee at Middlesex Community College, or a similar institution, and that “(3) All other motions will be submitted [to] binding arbitration.”   On that same date, pursuant to the parties' request, the court approved the agreement and entered an order in accordance therewith.

The parties engaged in arbitration and an arbitration ruling was issued on November 11, 2011.   Plaintiff has filed both a motion to confirm the arbitration award and an application for an order to confirm the arbitration award (Nos. 168 and 169).   Defendant has moved to vacate the arbitration award (No. 171) and asserts several bases for his motion, including bias and partiality.   In support of those contentions, defendant submitted evidence that he learned, subsequent to the arbitrator's rendition of her ruling, that the arbitrator and plaintiff's counsel are co-founders and co-presidents of Divorce Solutions of Connecticut, a nonprofit association which promotes the use of collaborative resolution of dissolution-related issues and provides a list of attorneys, divorce coaches, child specialists and financial planners engaged in the practice of collaborative resolution.

This court cannot consider the defendant's claims and also cannot confirm the award because a preclusive threshold issue exists.   The agreement that the parties submitted on May 23, 2011 did not list the docket numbers of the motions that the parties were agreeing to submit to binding arbitration, nor did it apprise the court that the parties intended to arbitrate child support, maintenance and custody issues.   A review of the 17–point “Ruling from Arbitration,” dated November 11, 2011, and appended to plaintiff's motion to confirm, reveals that most of the issues submitted to and decided by the arbitrator pertain to child support and maintenance, custody, modification of custody and support, and contempt motions as to these issues.

In 2005, the General Assembly expanded the basis for resolution of marital disputes to include binding arbitration pursuant to chapter 909 of Connecticut's general statutes.   In so doing, however, the legislature specifically prohibited the arbitration of issues “related to child support, visitation and custody.”   Public Act 05–258, Section 1, codified as General Statutes § 46b–66(c).¹

While this court laments the lack of its ability to assist the parties in moving on from what the arbitrator described as a disheartening, volatile, post-judgment relationship, in light of the law governing arbitration of most of the issues decided by the arbitrator, the motion to confirm the award as to those issues cannot be granted and the arbitration decision as to those issues is vacated.

Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16, of the arbitrator's ruling appear, however, to be related to issues that are not within the statutory prohibition as to binding arbitration.   The court seeks the parties' positions and submission of authority as to confirming and/or vacating only portions of the arbitration award, as opposed to the entire arbitration award.   These are to be filed with the court on or before January 25, 2012.

Epstein, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See also General Statutes § 46b–84, which addresses in general parents' support and maintenance obligations and General Statutes § 46b–8, which requires motions for modification to be heard concurrently by the court with motions for contempt for noncompliance..  FN1. See also General Statutes § 46b–84, which addresses in general parents' support and maintenance obligations and General Statutes § 46b–8, which requires motions for modification to be heard concurrently by the court with motions for contempt for noncompliance.

Epstein, Constance L., J.