In Re the Marriage of Roth
2017 COA 45
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michelle Roth and Robert Roth agreed to arbitrate permanent orders in their dissolution; the district court transferred jurisdiction to a retired judge acting as arbitrator.
- The arbitrator issued an award dividing marital property (75% to husband, 25% to wife) on March 10, 2015 and reserved 20 days for parties to seek correction, clarification, or modification.
- Both parties timely filed requests to the arbitrator seeking modification/clarification of valuation, tax treatment, and payment terms.
- While briefing on those requests was ongoing, the arbitrator died on April 12, 2015.
- Wife moved the district court to appoint a replacement arbitrator under the CUAA; husband moved to confirm the award. The court denied appointment and confirmed the award; wife appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roth) | Defendant's Argument (Roth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award while parties’ timely section 13-22-220 requests were pending before the arbitrator who then died | Court lacked jurisdiction because arbitration (including arbitrator's power to rule on timely modification/clarification requests) divested the court; after arbitrator's death court could only appoint a replacement arbitrator | Court could confirm because wife failed to allege statutory grounds for modification/correction; alternatively, arbitrator’s failure to act within 20 days ended his jurisdiction | Court vacated confirmation: district court exceeded jurisdiction. When timely modification/clarification requests are pending and arbitrator dies, the court must appoint a replacement arbitrator to resolve those requests before confirming the award |
| Whether the district court erred by denying motion to appoint a replacement arbitrator under CUAA §13-22-215(5) | Statute is mandatory; when arbitrator becomes unable to act a replacement shall be appointed to continue proceedings | Argued court could proceed to confirm award (and that arbitrator lost authority) | Reversed: district court must appoint replacement arbitrator; ‘‘shall be appointed’’ is mandatory under the CUAA |
| Whether a party’s motion to the arbitrator tolls court challenge deadlines | A timely motion to the arbitrator tolls the time to move in court to modify or vacate under CUAA | Husband argued arbitrator’s inaction or lack of proper grounds meant tolling was irrelevant | Court held that a motion to the arbitrator does toll court deadlines; arbitration remains pending until the arbitrator (or replacement) rules |
| Scope of replacement arbitrator’s authority | Replacement arbitrator must rule on pending section 13-22-220 requests but may not redetermine merits beyond the narrow statutory modification/correction powers | Husband argued substantive merits could be resolved by court | Court: replacement arbitrator may act only within statutory limits (clarify/correct/make limited modifications) and may not re-decide merits beyond §13-22-220 authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136 (Colo. 2011) (defining subject-matter jurisdiction and its limits)
- In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1981) (subject-matter jurisdiction depends on nature of claim and relief)
- Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d 672 (Colo. 2006) (arbitration agreement divests court of jurisdiction pending conclusion of arbitration)
- Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Grp. Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005) (arbitrator’s broader power to clarify or modify awards under CUAA)
- Applehans v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 68 P.3d 594 (Colo. App. 2003) (court should refuse confirmation when modification request is pending before arbitrator)
- Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. App. 2004) (CUAA alters functus officio; arbitrator retains limited post-award authority)