Weyher v. Weyher
138 A.3d 969
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Parties divorced after a contested trial; the dissolution judgment (July 2013) allocated many assets and required the parties to divide personal property by agreement within 30 days, with binding arbitration (by Roger Grenier or other court‑appointed arbitrator) if they could not agree. Neither party appealed the judgment.
- The parties later signed a court‑approved stipulation (Aug. 13, 2013) reiterating division of personal property per the judgment and confirming inherited/gifted items remain with the receiving party.
- Plaintiff failed initially to proceed to arbitration; defendant filed a motion for contempt and to compel arbitration, then arbitration proceeded and Grenier issued an award (Jan. 21, 2014).
- Defendant, now pro se, moved to correct/modify/vacate the arbitration award, asserting the arbitrator exceeded authority (esp. over an Ebel watch allegedly previously awarded to defendant) and that arbitration did not comply with statutory/arbitration rules; he also later alleged judicial bias for alleged onerous subpoena service requirements.
- Trial court denied the motion (Dec. 19, 2014), and on articulation (June 5, 2015) acknowledged it had inadvertently included the arbitration order in the dissolution judgment without complying with § 46b‑66(c), but concluded defendant failed to prove grounds to vacate the award; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by unilaterally ordering binding arbitration in the dissolution judgment | Plaintiff: parties had requested arbitration in their proposed orders and later stipulated to division by the court order; defendant waived attack by not appealing | Defendant: court lacked authority to mandate binding arbitration absent an executed agreement and required § 46b‑66(c) procedures | Court: Although inclusion of binding arbitration was improper under § 46b‑66(c), defendant waived collateral attack by not appealing; court retained jurisdiction and the claim fails |
| Whether arbitration proceedings failed to comply with chapter 909 (timeliness, signature, filing, factual findings) | Plaintiff: arbitration proceeded per the judgment/stipulation and award was implemented | Defendant: award untimely, unsigned, unsupported, not filed with clerk, so should be vacated | Court: Because parties proceeded under the judgment language and defendant presented no evidence that the court's order was not followed, claim failed |
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by reallocating items court previously awarded (Ebel watch) | Plaintiff: arbitrator adjusted allocation to account for sold/absent items; allocation need not be by monetary value | Defendant: arbitrator ignored court award and allocated the Ebel watch to plaintiff, exceeding scope | Court: Award shows the watch had been sold and arbitrator accounted for that; allocation was detailed and not shown unfair or beyond scope; claim failed |
| Whether judge was biased by imposing onerous service requirements that prevented witness testimony | Plaintiff: court acted properly; defendant had options and did not timely object | Defendant: court required in‑hand marshal service, allowing witness to evade service and depriving defendant of due process | Court: Defendant never raised disqualification at trial; court offered continuance; record shows no bias; claim meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Barcelo v. Barcelo, 158 Conn. App. 201 (2015) (court cannot order arbitration absent a voluntary agreement; arbitration is contractual)
- McLoughlin v. McLoughlin, 157 Conn. App. 568 (2015) (distinguishing statutory authority to order arbitration from subject matter jurisdiction)
- Budrawich v. Budrawich, 156 Conn. App. 628 (2015) (court’s statutory authority vs. jurisdiction; failure to follow statutory arbitration procedure does not necessarily void judgment)
- Keller v. Beckenstein, 305 Conn. 523 (2012) (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage)
- Doody v. Doody, 99 Conn. App. 512 (2007) (plain error review for unpreserved claims of judicial bias)
- Urban Redevelopment Comm'n v. Katsetos, 86 Conn. App. 236 (2004) (collateral attack on judgment is impermissible absent lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Connecticut Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Milano, 191 Conn. 555 (1983) (factors for assessing challenges to subject matter jurisdiction and finality of judgments)
- In re Jose B., 303 Conn. 569 (2012) (distinguishing jurisdiction from the manner in which statutory power is exercised)