In re Marriage of Haleas
2017 IL App (2d) 160799
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Peter and Fanee Haleas married in 2006; no children of the marriage. Petitioner (Peter) chaired Bridgeview Bancorp and Bridgeview Bank Group; respondent (Fanee) worked as BBG VP until her 2015 termination.
- Peter filed for dissolution in March 2014. Parties agreed to binding arbitration (Med./Arb.) for property and maintenance issues under the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act.
- Arbitration (5 days) produced a 70-page award finding certain business interests nonmarital, assessing petitioner’s income (2016 income found to be $325,000), and awarding fixed-term “permanent termination” maintenance totaling varying monthly amounts over 37 months plus portions of bonuses and attorneys’ fees.
- Trial court confirmed the arbitration award on August 9, 2016 and entered final dissolution judgment on August 24, 2016 incorporating the award.
- Respondent appealed, challenging classification of a business interest as nonmarital, the arbitrator’s income findings, and the duration/amount of maintenance; she did not assert statutory grounds under the Arbitration Act to vacate or modify the award.
Issues
| Issue | Haleas (plaintiff/petitioner) Argument | Haleas (respondent) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of arbitration award / scope of review | Parties agreed to binding arbitration; Arbitration Act allows only limited judicial review | Arbitrator erred on property classification, income calculations, and maintenance amount/duration; court should review merits | Confirmed: Arbitration Act limits review; petitioner failed to show statutory grounds to vacate/modify the award |
| Classification of certain business interests (marital vs nonmarital) | Business interests were nonmarital and some encumbered by debt; arbitrator’s factual findings supported award | Business interest should be marital; petitioner estopped from certain defenses | Arbitrator’s classification upheld under limited-review standards; no showing of grounds to vacate |
| Calculation of petitioner’s income for maintenance | Certain deposits were loans (not income); arbitrator properly excluded them | Those funds/benefits should be treated as income under Marriage Act | Arbitrator’s income determination stands; merits review not permitted absent statutory basis to vacate |
| Maintenance type, amount, duration (permanent-termination fixed term) | Arbitrator considered statutory factors and allowed fixed-term permanent-termination maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/504(b-4.5) | Award unconscionable or improper in amount/duration; should be reversed | Award valid; statute permits fixed-term permanent-termination maintenance for marriages <10 years and arbitrator’s findings not reviewable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. The Ryland Group, Inc., 372 Ill. App. 3d 200 (limited judicial review of arbitration awards)
- Hawrelak v. Marine Bank, Springfield, 316 Ill. App. 3d 175 (arbitration review scope contrasted with appellate review)
- Herricane Graphics, Inc. v. Blinderman Construction Co., 354 Ill. App. 3d 151 (presumption arbitrator did not exceed authority)
- Beatty v. The Doctors’ Co., 374 Ill. App. 3d 558 (gross mistake standard for vacating awards)
- Sloan Electric v. Professional Realty & Development Corp., 353 Ill. App. 3d 614 (definition of gross mistake)
- First Health Group Corp. v. Ruddick, 393 Ill. App. 3d 40 (finality of arbitration; arbitration as end of litigation)
- Kalish v. Illinois Education Ass’n, 166 Ill. App. 3d 406 (courts cannot reweigh merits of arbitrator’s award)
- In re Marriage of Best, 387 Ill. App. 3d 948 (public‑policy limits on private waiver of child‑related rights)