Manger v. Manger, 417 N.J. Super. 370

Manger v. Manger concerns a 1964 marriage with a divorce filed January 12, 2007 and a binding arbitration of financial issues following a 2008 Judgment of Divorce.
The arbitration focused on valuing and distributing a hair salon business; the court had previously ordered business appraisals and limited discovery.
Arbitrator established hearing procedures, including exchange of documents and excluding certain evidence not produced in accordance with case management directives.
Arbitrator awarded the salon to plaintiff and provided defendant $650 weekly as her share of equitable distribution, with no alimony due to parity of income and assets.
Defendant moved to vacate the award; the trial judge denied and confirmed the award, noting ample opportunity to present evidence and prohibitive costs of valuing the business.
Defendant appeals arguing arbitrator misconduct (limiting expert testimony/evidence and pro hac vice ruling); plaintiff contends no misconduct occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute governs review of the arbitration award?	Arbitration Act applies unless APDRA election occurred.	APDRA should govern review since proceedings were arbitration of matrimonial financial issues.	Arbitration Act governs review; no express APDRA election.
Did arbitrator misconduct justify vacating the award?	No misconduct; award supported by evidence and procedures.	Arbitrator barred expert testimony, excluded evidence, and erred on co-counsel pro hac vice.	No grounds to vacate; challenged actions were within arbitrator's broad authority.
Was the exclusion of certain bank statements proper?	Arbitrator properly excluded non-disclosed documents to maintain fair process.	Bank records were relevant to valuation and should have been admitted.	Properly excluded under the case management framework and discovery prerogatives.
Did the arbitrator exceed powers or undermine statutory factors in distribution?	Award follows statutory equitable distribution principles and reflects the marital estate.	Distribution did not adequately reflect value and parity could shift with alimony.	No exceedance of powers; award rationally tied to evidence and statutory factors.

Weinstock v. Weinstock, 377 N.J. Super. 182 (App. Div. 2005) (APDRA is voluntary and operable upon agreement)
Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456 (2009) (distinguishes APDRA vs. Arbitration Act contexts)
Johnson v. Johnson, 204 N.J. 529 (2010) (distinguishes APDRA in parenting disputes from Arbitration Act contexts)
Wein v. Morris, 194 N.J. 364 (2008) (arbitration referral order as a final order subject to appeal)
Hogoboom v. Hogoboom, 393 N.J. Super. 509 (App. Div. 2007) (standard for reviewing vacatur of arbitration awards)
Del Piano v. Merrill Lynch, 372 N.J. Super. 503 (App. Div. 2004) (de novo review of arbitrator's decision)