186 Conn. App. 641
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Cheryl Jenkins and Michael Jenkins agreed to arbitrate several issues in their 2013 dissolution action; arbitration occurred December 1, 2, and 21, 2015, before Arbitrator Elaine Gordon and the parties agreed not to record proceedings.
- The parties’ arbitration agreement gave the arbitrator control over evidence and required counsel to exchange exhibits by a set date.
- Plaintiff disclosed psychiatrist Carl Mueller as an expert; Mueller had relied in part on a letter the defendant wrote to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff failed to produce that letter before arbitration.
- At the arbitration, the defendant objected when the plaintiff attempted to introduce the letter; the arbitrator excluded Mueller’s testimony entirely as sanction for the plaintiff’s failure to produce the letter and later denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
- The arbitrator issued an award dividing assets and awarding alimony; the plaintiff moved in Superior Court to vacate the award on two statutory grounds: (1) refusal to hear material evidence (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a)(3)) and (2) evident partiality (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a)(2)).
- After an evidentiary hearing (no arbitration transcript available), the trial court denied the motions to vacate and confirmed the award; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator’s exclusion of expert testimony deprived Jenkins of a full and fair hearing under § 52-418(a)(3) | Exclusion of Mueller (psychiatrist) was prejudicial because his testimony was material to proving abuse and fault for the marriage breakdown | Arbitrator had broad discretion to exclude evidence and sanction for plaintiff’s failure to produce exhibits as required by the agreement | Held: No deprivation; exclusion was within arbitrator’s discretion, evidence was cumulative and plaintiff failed to show substantial prejudice |
| Whether arbitrator’s conduct showed evident partiality under § 52-418(a)(2) | Arbitrator was belligerent, screamed, slammed door causing debris, made religiously charged remark, and favored defendant (including speaking in Hebrew) | Defendant disputed most alleged incidents; witnesses gave mixed testimony; plaintiff bears burden to prove evident partiality | Held: No evident partiality; plaintiff failed to meet burden—trial court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- McCann v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 288 Conn. 203 (2008) (arbitrators have broad discretion on evidence admission; refusal to receive evidence does not automatically constitute misconduct)
- Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc., 278 Conn. 466 (2006) (party challenging arbitration award bears burden to invalidate it; must show substantial prejudice for vacatur)
- Dept. of Transportation v. White Oak Corp., 319 Conn. 582 (2015) (statutory standard of review under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418 described)
- Haynes Construction Co. v. Cascella & Son Construction, Inc., 36 Conn. App. 29 (1994) (clearly erroneous standard applied to trial court factual findings on arbitrator partiality)
- Toland v. Toland, 179 Conn. App. 800 (2018) (evidentiary showing for arbitrator partiality requires more than appearance of bias)