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

Heading: the factual and procedural history

Text: Plaintiff filed for divorce in January 2001. After failed settlement conferences in the circuit court, on December 4, 2001, both parties stipulated in writing to entry of an order sending all issues in the case to binding arbitration. The arbitrator put the parties in separate rooms during the arbitration proceedings. He shuttled between them, gathering the necessary information and hearing the respective arguments. Both parties agreed to this procedure. At the end of the day, plaintiff asked the arbitrator for additional sessions. He denied the request, expressly noting in his written award that plaintiff had failed to raise anything new to justify further proceedings. When plaintiff made a second request, the arbitrator gave her three days to provide an outline of what she would present at the additional proceedings. She supplied, instead, voluminous material. Rather than schedule more hearings, the arbitrator reviewed plaintiff's material, modified the award, and issued the final binding arbitration award. Plaintiff filed a motion in court to set aside the arbitration award on the basis that the arbitrator had failed to conduct a hearing as required by the DRAA. She also claimed that no arbitration agreement existed. The court rejected plaintiff's claims and entered a judgment of divorce. In a split published decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court and vacated the arbitration award. It held that the DRAA required a formal hearing and that none occurred during the arbitration. Miller v. Miller, 264 Mich.App. 497, 691 N.W.2d 788 (2004).