Miller, T. v. Miller, C.
797 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Parties married 1972, separated 2007; multiple filings followed (complaints in support/divorce; APL request; discovery and partial master hearing in 2011).
- Parties signed a Binding Mediation Agreement (BMA) in January 2012 naming Dr. Joseph Besselman as "Mediator." The BMA described a process that would produce a Mediation Settlement Agreement (MSA) and stated the MSA would be legally binding if not signed within 14 days.
- Dr. Besselman drafted an MSA; Husband signed it in June 2014, Wife did not. The BMA contained language authorizing the mediator to unilaterally decide unresolved items and submit the MSA to the court for finalization.
- Husband moved to enforce the MSA and to enter a final divorce decree incorporating the MSA; the trial court held hearings/fact-finding (oral argument Jan 30, 2015; hearing Apr 13, 2015) and issued an order April 20, 2015 enforcing the BMA/MSA.
- Wife appealed, arguing lack of mutual intent to arbitrate, that alimony/APL/support were outside the BMA scope, denial of due process/irregular arbitration (no hearing, notice, mediator bias), and fraud/unconscionability in obtaining the BMA.
- The trial court (Walko, J.) credited Husband’s testimony, found the BMA ambiguous as to scope but resolvable by testimony, held the parties intended to be bound by the mediator’s decisions (common-law arbitration), found adequate notice/opportunity to be heard (email submissions), and concluded Wife failed to prove fraud, irregularity, bias, or inequity warranting vacatur; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties agreed to be bound by mediator (common-law arbitration) | BMA language shows parties agreed mediator could render binding decisions and submit MSA to court | Terming the document a "mediation" shows intent for non-binding mediation only | Court: BMA language (including clause making unsigned MSA "legally binding") shows intent to be bound; agreement treated as common-law arbitration |
| Whether alimony/APL/support were within arbitration scope | BMA allowed parties or mediator to identify "issues"; emails/communications showed alimony was put before mediator | BMA did not explicitly list alimony/APL/support; Wife believed only property and counsel fees were submitted | Court: scope ambiguous but testimony and documentary evidence show parties intended all outstanding divorce issues (including alimony/APL/support) to be arbitrated |
| Whether arbitration process denied due process or was irregular (no formal hearing, mediator not an attorney) | Parties agreed to process (emails/phone submissions); parties waived formal hearing; Wife submitted alimony positions to mediator | Lack of a formal hearing, alleged lack of notice of specific issues, and mediator’s non-lawyer status deprived Wife of due process | Court: process conformed to what parties agreed; emails show notice and opportunity to be heard; mediator’s lack of legal training not a basis to vacate award |
| Whether fraud, bias, mistake, or inequity required vacating MSA | Husband: Wife failed to present clear, precise, indubitable evidence of fraud/irregularity or inequity | Wife: alleged omissions/errors in MSA, mediator’s bias/friendship with Husband, and mistakes in valuation/items omitted | Court: Wife failed to meet heavy burden to show fraud, misconduct, or other irregularity causing an unconscionable award; MSA enforced and incorporated into decree |
Key Cases Cited
- Garango v. Terminix Intern. Co., L.P., 784 A.2d 188 (Pa. Super. 2001) (arbitrators are final judges of law and fact; awards not subject to reversal for mistake of law or fact)
- F.J. Busse Co., Inc. v. Sheila Zipporah, L.P., 879 A.2d 809 (Pa. Super. 2005) (policy favoring arbitration and limited judicial review)
- McKenna v. Sosso, 745 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1999) (party seeking vacatur of common-law arbitration award must show denial of hearing or fraud/misconduct/irregularity and inequity by clear, precise, indubitable evidence)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fioravanti, 299 A.2d 585 (Pa. 1973) ("other irregularity" standard requires such bad faith or indifference to justice as to vacate award)