938 N.E.2d 831
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Kelly Brockmann and Robert Brockmann married in 2000 and have one child, A.B.
- A provisional custody order was entered in 2007 and later amended; in 2007 Father filed a petition to modify legal custody that the trial court did not act upon.
- The February 2008 final dissolution decree incorporated the prior custody order but made no reference to Father’s petition to modify custody.
- In August 2008 the court approved a Family Law Arbitration and the parties signed an Agreement to Arbitrate stating all issues of dispute would be submitted to arbitration, with the current issue being where the child would attend school.
- An arbitrator issued findings on schooling in September 2008; the October 2008 custody modification hearing was never held and the petition remained unresolved.
- In February 2010 the trial court held a hearing on whether Father’s petition to modify custody must be arbitrated and held the arbitration agreement bound the parties to continue arbitration for the action, treating the ruling as a final judgment for appeal purposes; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitration was proper for Father's petition to modify custody | Mother argues petition to modify custody was not within arbitration scope | Brockmann argues FLAA arbitration covers modification petitions and related issues | Arbitration not intended for modification petition; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Evansville Vanderburgh Sch. Corp. v. Evansville Teachers Ass'n, 494 N.E.2d 321 (Ind.Ct.App. 1986) (arbitration order is a final appealable judgment)
- Showboat Marina Casino P'ship v. Tonn & Blank Constr., 790 N.E.2d 595 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (arb. interpretation favors arbitration; limits on scope)
- Shorter v. Shorter, 851 N.E.2d 378 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (plain meaning and ambiguity in contract interpretation)
- Polinsky v. Violi, 803 N.E.2d 684 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (arbitration aims for streamlined, expedited resolution)
- Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (U.S. 2008) (arbitration promotes streamlined, expeditious results)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1985) (prime objective of arbitration is efficient dispute resolution)