In re the Marriage of Rivera, 2013 COA 21

Parties resolved dissolution via mediation and arbitration; mediator designated as arbitrator; mediated agreement not filed.
Arbitration addressed property and parenting provisions; final award reaffirmed mediation parenting plan.
Wife filed forthwith motion to confirm arbitration award under 18-22-222(1) and urged the court to adopt the Parenting Plan.
Court questioned whether the parenting provisions should be confirmed or subject to de novo review; asked for testimony to ensure understanding of the agreement.
Court initially declined to confirm the parenting provisions and set a permanent orders hearing; later entered partial confirmation of property and maintenance, leaving parenting issues for hearing.
Husband appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to hold a permanent orders hearing absent a timely de novo request under section 14-10-128.5(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court had authority to schedule a de novo permanent orders hearing for parenting issues.	Rivera	Rivera	Authority limited; no timely de novo request.
Whether the 14-10-128.5(2) de novo hearing requirement was timely invoked.	Wife did not timely request de novo review	Court should allow de novo hearing if timely	No timely request; trial court erred by scheduling permanent orders hearing.
Whether the court should have confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety.	Award should be confirmed since no grounds to vacate	Court can modify or vacate under statute if timely	Reverse to confirm entire award; remand for full confirmation.

In re Marriage of Kniskern, 80 P.3d 939 (Colo.App. 2003) (de novo review may be used for AR/UDMA-related issues)
In re Marriage of Popack, 998 P.2d 464 (Colo.App. 2000) (de novo review in arbitration matters under UAA framework)
In re Parentage of Smith-Bartlett, 95 Wash.App. 633, 976 P.2d 173 (Wash.App. 1999) (de novo hearing context for permanent orders)