Curran v. Curran, 181 A.3d 1025

Parties (Robert and Debra Curran) agreed by consent order to binding economic arbitration under the New Jersey Arbitration Act for all matrimonial issues; the retainer and referral stated the award was final and only reviewable under the Act.
A handwritten clause (paragraph 3A), inserted by Debra’s counsel and initialed by both parties, purported to preserve a direct appeal to the Appellate Division "as if the matter was determined by the trial court."
The arbitrator issued a preliminary award, denied Robert’s reconsideration on most points, and entered a detailed final award; Robert then moved in the Law Division to modify the award, citing paragraph 3A.
The trial judge found paragraph 3A unenforceable (parties cannot create subject-matter jurisdiction or direct appellate review by agreement), nevertheless performed a full merits review analogous to an appellate review, and confirmed the award.
On appeal Robert argued paragraph 3A voided the entire arbitration agreement and the award should be vacated; he also raised substantive challenges to alimony and equitable distribution but did not claim fraud, corruption, or statutory vacatur grounds under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether paragraph 3A (direct appeal to Appellate Division) is lawful	Paragraph 3A is illegal and, Robert contends, voids the arbitration agreement and proceedings	Debra concedes 3A is illegal but argues the remainder of the arbitration agreement stands	3A is unenforceable; parties cannot create subject-matter jurisdiction or direct appeals by contract
Whether the illegal clause voids the entire arbitration agreement	3A’s illegality renders the whole agreement and award void	The illegal clause is severable; the primary purpose (binding arbitration under the Act) remains intact	Court severed 3A and enforced the remainder; severance did not defeat the contract’s primary purpose
Whether the trial court properly reviewed and confirmed the arbitration award	Robert sought modification and relies on 3A; alternatively sought remand for an appellate-style record	Debra moved to confirm the award; trial judge conducted comprehensive review under the Act and confirmed	Trial judge’s review and confirmation were proper; review under the Act (trial-court forum) is the correct path
Whether award should be vacated or modified under the Act	Robert argued arbitrator’s legal errors warranted modification/vacatur	Debra argued no statutory grounds for vacatur and heavy presumption favors enforcement	No statutory vacatur or modification grounds proven; award confirmed

Morgan v. Sanford Brown Inst., 225 N.J. 289 (de novo review of arbitration agreement)
Jacob v. Norris, 128 N.J. 10 (severability test: strike illegal provision only if it defeats contract’s primary purpose)
Minkowitz v. Israeli, 433 N.J. Super. 111 (strong public policy favoring arbitration and limited judicial intervention)
Weinstock v. Weinstock, 377 N.J. Super. 182 (parties cannot create subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement)
Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456 (arbitration as effective alternative in family litigation)