-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PAUL HARTIGAN, 

 Plaintiff/Counter DefendantAppellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

October 1, 2015 

v No. 321506 

Macomb Circuit Court 

THE GOLD REFINERY LLC, LC No. 2011-004683 - CZ 

 Defendant/Counter PlaintiffAppellant. 

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SAAD, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals an order that entered a judgment for plaintiff in conjunction with an 

arbitral award. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 Defendant The Gold Refinery is a decentralized gold-for-cash business that purchases 

gold, usually in the form of jewelry, from individuals. Defendant then resells the gold to 

smelters at a profit. Direct purchases are made by defendant’s agents, who organize hotel events 

and house parties where third parties can meet and sell their gold. The agents, according to 

defendant, are compensated based on the volume of gold that changes hands during these 

meetings. 

 Plaintiff Hartigan worked as an agent for defendant, and organized gold-purchase events 

in California. For reasons that are not clearly explained by either party, he sued defendant in 

2011 for breach of contract and unpaid sales commissions. Because the parties agreed to binding 

arbitration, the dispute was submitted to an arbitrator in 2012, and the Macomb Circuit Court 

retained jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to MCR 3.602. There is no record of the 

arbitration proceedings, which took place from 2012 to 2014. 

 In August 2013, the arbitrator issued a partial final award, in which the arbitrator made 

his legal conclusions. The order specified that defendant: (1) had breached its contract with 

plaintiff for failure to pay him promised compensation; and (2) owed plaintiff statutory damages 

under MCL 600.2961 for its intentional withholding of commission payments. The partial final 
-2- 

award noted that the parties would be allowed to present evidence on each of these issues to 

determine the precise amount of damages owed by defendant. 

 After he considered the evidence submitted by the parties, the arbitrator issued a final 

order in January 2014. The order required defendant to pay plaintiff roughly $42,000 with 

interest. Soon thereafter, on January 22, 2014, defendant asked the trial court to vacate or 

modify the arbitral award, because the arbitrator supposedly misapplied MCL 600.2961 by 

awarding plaintiff a “commission” for his work, even though plaintiff did not sell gold on 

defendant’s behalf. Plaintiff responded that: (1) defendant’s motion was untimely, because 

defendant failed to appeal the August 2013 partial final award, which contained the substantive 

legal findings applicable to this case; and (2) in any event, the arbitrator did not make an error of 

law under MCL 600.2961, because he made a factual determination that plaintiff was paid a 

commission for his activities. 

 The trial court concurred with plaintiff’s analysis and denied defendant’s motion to 

vacate or modify the arbitral award. On appeal, defendant claims that the trial court erred in 

denying its motion, and makes the same arguments as it did at the motion hearing. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 A trial court’s decision to vacate or enforce an arbitral award is reviewed de novo. 

Washington v Washington, 283 Mich App 667, 671; 770 NW2d 908 (2009). “Judicial review of 

an arbitrator’s decision is narrowly circumscribed.” Ann Arbor v AFSCME Local 369, 284 Mich 

App 126, 144; 771 NW2d 843 (2009). A court may not review an arbitrator’s findings of fact or 

decision on the merits, or substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator. Id. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 It is well-established Michigan law that “as long as the arbitrator is even arguably 

construing or applying the [arbitration] contract and acting within the scope of his authority, a 

court may not overturn the decision even if convinced that the arbitrator committed a serious 

error.” Ann Arbor, 284 Mich App at 144. And, it is equally clear that an arbitral award may be 

vacated “where [legal error] clearly appears on the face of the award or [in] the reasons for the 

decision as stated.” Saveski v Tiseo Architects, Inc, 261 Mich App 553, 555; 682 NW2d 542 

(2004). 

 Here, there is nothing in the record regarding the arbitral award that suggests the 

arbitrator exceeded his contractual authority or committed legal error when he decided that 

plaintiff was entitled to damages for withheld commissions pursuant to MCL 600.2961. As 

plaintiff observes, there is no merit to defendant’s protestations that its business model—where 

its agents purchase gold from third parties with company funds, and then are paid for the volume 

of gold they purchase—does not involve the payment of commissions, and thus protects it from 

liability under MCL 600.2961. Defendant’s argument is simply inconsequential to the particular 

facts of this case, which were properly found by the arbitrator. “On the face of the [arbitral] 

award,” it is obvious that the arbitrator found, in this case, that defendant withheld commissions 

from plaintiff, and that it accordingly was required to pay plaintiff damages pursuant to MCL 
-3- 

600.2961. Saveski, 261 Mich App at 555. Again, “[a] court may not review an arbitrator’s 

factual findings or decision on the merits.” Ann Arbor, 284 Mich App at 144.1

 Because defendant’s appeal has no substantive legal merit, it is unnecessary to address 

defendant’s procedural argument on the timeliness (or lack thereof) of its motion to vacate or 

modify the arbitral award.2

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly 

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh 

/s/ Henry William Saad 

 

1

 Moreover, there is nothing for us to review apart from the arbitral awards—there is no record of 

the arbitral proceedings other than the August 2013 partial final award and the June 2014 final 

award. 

2

 In any event, the trial court correctly held that defendant’s motion to vacate or modify the 

arbitral award was untimely. The arbitrator issued his partial final award on August 26, 2013, 

which contained his substantive conclusions of law on each issue in this case. If defendant 

believed the arbitrator’s legal conclusions to be in error, it should have filed a motion to vacate 

the award within 90 days pursuant to MCL 691.1703(2). Defendant failed to do so, and its 

claims that the partial final award was not a final order on the substantive legal issues in this case 

are frivolous and unpersuasive. Defendant’s motion to vacate or modify the arbitrator’s award, 

filed on January 22, 2014, contested its general liability under MCL 600.2961—the exact issue 

which was decided in the arbitrator’s partial final award, issued, again, on August 26, 2013. The 

motion did not contest the specific amount defendant was ordered to pay plaintiff under MCL 

600.2961, which is the only issue the arbitrator decided in his final award, issued in January 

2014.