2012 IL App (2d) 120513
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- In August 2000, divorce decree designated Jill Golden as primary residential custodian with a joint parenting agreement outlining a detailed parenting schedule.
- Amendments in December 2006 gave Golden sole physical custody and limited direct contact; a 2010 amendment created a parenting coordinator and a new schedule, with arbitration for camp, medical decisions, and the regular parenting time schedule.
- The 2010 amendment required communication through a coordinator and provided arbitration for matters including the regular parenting time schedule.
- On January 13, 2012, Alan Friedman moved to compel arbitration, alleging Jill forfeited substantial regular parenting time in 2011 and early 2012, affecting the schedule.
- Petitioner opposed arbitration, arguing no clearly defined conflict and no dispute within the arbitration clause; the trial court denied arbitration, prompting this appeal.
- The appellate court granted Friedman's appeal, holding there was an arbitrable controversy and reversed the trial court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an arbitrable controversy exists under the April 2010 amendment. | Friedman contends a dispute over the regular parenting time schedule falls within the arbitration clause. | Golden argues no dispute exists because no specific change proposal was made. | Yes, an arbitrable controversy exists. |
| Whether the arbitration clause requires a specific proposed change to trigger arbitrability. | The clause does not require a proposed modification to trigger arbitration; any dispute related to the matters is arbitrable. | Arbitration requires a concrete disagreement and proposed change to be arbitrable. | No, the clause is broad enough to cover arbitrable controversy without a specific proposal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Gale, 95 Ill. 533 (Ill. 1880) (arbitration requires a controversy between parties to proceed)
- Sebree v. Board of Education, 254 Ill. 438 (Ill. 1912) (distinguishes arbitration from appraisal; requires dispute to arbitrate)
- Cocalis v. Nazlides, 308 Ill. 152 (Ill. 1923) (essential to arbitration: there must be a dispute or honest difference of opinion)
- Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Futures, Inc. v. Barr, 124 Ill. 2d 435 (Ill. 1988) (arbitration questions are decided on whether an agreement to arbitrate exists)
- TDE Ltd. v. Israel, 185 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (Ill. App. 1989) (discusses existence of dispute under broad arbitration clause)
- Scott v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 26 Ill. App. 3d 971 (Ill. App. 1975) (interpretation of terms with arbitration-like concepts)
- Ramonas v. Kerelis, 102 Ill. App. 2d 262 (Ill. App. 1968) (pre-Act context on arbitration of future disputes)
- Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433 (Ill. 2010) (statutory interpretation of arbitration statute)