Opinion ID: 2048918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Review of Arbitrator's Decision

Text: Edward's second contention on appeal is that the trial justice committed reversible error when he determined that because the parties agreed to binding arbitration, the arbitrator's decision was insulated from any review and therefore was confirmed. Although we agree that the trial justice did not perform any meaningful review of the arbitrator's decision, we are not persuaded that this omission amounts to reversible error. During the hearing, the trial justice declared: The Court finds that the issue before the Court is not whether the Court should set aside the arbitrator's decision but should the Court enforce the parties' contract to be bound by the arbitrator's decision.    The Court finds that since the parties agreed to be bound by the arbitrator's decision the defendant's motion to set aside the arbitrator's decision is denied. We are satisfied that the trial justice failed to review the arbitrator's decision in accordance with established child support principles, but rather simply, relied on the parties' agreement to seek arbitration in the first place. The property settlement agreement provides that Edward was responsible for the payment of all reasonable education expenses of his children. This is a form of child support and such awards are considered in light of established child support guidelines. Koziol v. Koziol 720 A.2d 230, 233 (R.I.1998). The child support guidelines encourage Family Court justices to exercise broad discretion and to take appropriate action, when application of the guidelines would be inequitable to the child or the parties. Id. Thus, we are of the opinion that the hearing justice should have reviewed the arbitrator's decision to determine whether his conclusion was inequitable to the parties or was in the child's best interest. We equally are satisfied, however, that the trial justice's error was harmless. There is no evidence in the record before us demonstrating that the arbitrator's decision was not in their son's best interests; both parties agreed that he should remain at the Forman School. Additionally, there is no suggestion that the arbitrator's decision was inequitable to Edward. The arbitrator noted in his decision that: As of July 29, 2005, from the pleadings reviewed    [Edward] had at no time since 1996 motioned the Family Court to review the issue of    reduction of support and/or filed any type of objection to the minor child    attending Foreman [ sic ] School. Therefore the sole issue for determination is whether or not the tuition cost    for the child to attend Foreman [ sic ] School are `reasonable' expenses.    At the time said Agreement was executed    the [defendant] had annual gross income of between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000.    Both Memorandums provided by counsel indicate that the cost to attend Foreman [ sic ] School is approximately $40,000 per year. Based on the foregoing it is the opinion of the Arbitrator that the parties mutually agreed to allow the child to attend Foreman [ sic ] School, and having reviewed the contents of the Property Settlement Agreement, the Arbitrator finds that the cost of attending Foreman [ sic ] School are in fact reasonable expenses in accordance with the lifestyle enjoyed by the parties as evidence by the Property Settlement Agreement   . After the arbitrator made his decision, Edward argued to the trial justice that his income had substantially decreased since 1996, when he entered into the property settlement agreement. This, however, is of no consequence about whether the arbitrator's decision, or the order that subsequently entered was inequitable.