Opinion ID: 847207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the sufficiency of the parties' written arbitration agreement

Text: Plaintiff argued below that no written arbitration agreement existed in this case. Defendant disagreed. Although the Court of Appeals majority did not reach this issue directly, it listed as alternative grounds for possible relief that the stipulated order did not constitute a written arbitration agreement. Miller, 264 Mich.App at 507 n. 12, 691 N.W.2d 788. We disagree. As we noted earlier, the DRAA requires a written arbitration agreement setting out the subject of the arbitration and the arbitrator's powers. M.C.L. § 600.5071 and M.C.L. § 600.5072(1)(e). Here, the parties entered into a written agreement satisfying these requirements when they stipulated to entry of the particularized order for binding arbitration that the court in due course entered. The order lists the issues for arbitration. It clearly delineates the arbitrator's powers and duties. Accordingly, it is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of M.C.L. § 600.5071 and M.C.L. § 600.5072(1)(e). [5] Nothing in the DRAA mandates that there be an agreement separate from the stipulated order. This is consistent with the informal and sometimes unorthodox nature of arbitration. Gavin, 416 Mich. at 429, 331 N.W.2d 418. As long as the parties agree to some document that meets the minimal requirements of M.C.L. § 600.5071 and M.C.L. § 600.5072(1)(e), the agreement is sufficient. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals that reached the contrary conclusion.