179 Conn. App. 800
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Parties married in 1987; plaintiff filed for dissolution in Sept. 2014; after ~16 months of litigation the parties agreed to arbitrate on Jan. 5, 2016 and a retired judge served as arbitrator.
- Arbitration submission (paragraph 5) authorized the arbitrator to decide dissolution issues including alimony, property division, lump-sum alimony, and attorney’s fees under Connecticut law; paragraph 11 reserved "legal conclusions" for appeal but disclaimed appeal of factual findings.
- Two-day arbitration occurred Feb. 1–2, 2016; arbitrator awarded alimony to the plaintiff, divided assets, and awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant; arbitrator noted consideration of statutory criteria and the plaintiff’s Lyme disease.
- Defendant moved to confirm the award; plaintiff moved to vacate under General Statutes §§ 52-418/52-420, arguing (inter alia) restricted submission (wider judicial review), public-policy violation (misapplication of §§ 46b-81/46b-82), evident partiality/manifest disregard, plain error, and improper award of attorney’s fees.
- Trial court granted confirmation and denied vacatur; on appeal the Appellate Court reviewed (1) whether the submission was restricted or unrestricted and (2) whether any of the statutory grounds for vacatur applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration submission was restricted (warranting expanded judicial review of alimony/property rulings) | Toland: paragraph 11 reserved "legal conclusions" so alimony/property determinations are reviewable for abuse of discretion | Toland’s claims actually attack factual findings and paragraph 5 granted broad authority to arbitrator; paragraph 11 did not expand review of factual findings | Submission was unrestricted as to alimony/property; appellate court properly declined more searching review and treated factual determinations as binding |
| Whether the award violated clear public policy by misapplying §§ 46b-81/46b-82 (alimony/property) | Toland: arbitrator ignored/failed to apply statutory factors, producing an "utterly disproportionate" result that violates public policy | No dominant public policy requires a particular distribution; statutes permit broad, fact-specific discretion | No clear public policy identified; vacatur on public-policy ground denied |
| Whether award should be vacated for evident partiality or manifest disregard of law under § 52-418(a)(2) & (4) | Toland: arbitrator’s admonishments, denial of recess, alleged failure to inquire into her illness/competency, and editorial comments show evident partiality or manifest disregard | Adverse rulings and admonishments to control testimony do not show bias; record shows inquiry into Lyme disease; alleged legal errors are misapplications, not manifest disregard | No evident partiality shown; manifest-disregard claim fails because errors (if any) are misapplications of law and arbitrator stated she considered statutory criteria |
| Whether arbitrator improperly awarded attorney’s fees under §§ 46b-62 & 46b-82 | Toland: fee award unjustified and an abuse of discretion requiring vacatur | Parties bargained for arbitrator to award fees; disagreement with result is not a statutory ground for vacatur | Fee award affirmed; plaintiff’s disagreement with the merits is insufficient to vacate an award under unrestricted submission |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFrance v. Lodmell, 322 Conn. 828 (appellate review of arbitration awards; distinction between unrestricted and restricted submissions)
- Schoonmaker v. Cummings & Lockwood of Connecticut, P.C., 252 Conn. 416 (two-step public policy analysis for vacating arbitral awards)
- United Illuminating Co. v. Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC, 259 Conn. 665 (parties may contract for de novo review of arbitrators’ conclusions of law; factual findings binding if so reserved)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (manifest disregard requires more than misapplication of law)
- Alexson v. Foss, 276 Conn. 599 (enumeration of three grounds for vacating unrestricted arbitration awards)
- Economos v. Liljedahl Bros., Inc., 279 Conn. 300 (test for manifest disregard of the law)
- HH East Parcel, LLC v. Handy & Harman, Inc., 287 Conn. 189 (parties may contract for expanded judicial review of arbitrator findings)
- Kellogg v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 326 Conn. 638 (§ 52-418(a)(4) described as manifest disregard/exceeding powers)
- SBD Kitchens, LLC v. Jefferson, 157 Conn. App. 731 (arbitrator’s statement that Connecticut law was considered undermines manifest-disregard claim)