Court Opinion

ID: 9850783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:02:56.26844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:43.241102
License: Public Domain

O’Connell, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The present dispute is no Gordian knot, and requires no fatal sword stroke to resolve. Rather, by addressing the one flaw contained in the agreement, the involvement of the circuit court, the knot quickly unravels.
The majority has concluded that because of the invalidity of certain provisions of the parties’ arbi*344tration agreement, the entire agreement is unenforceable at law. Inexplicably, the majority relies on this Court’s recent decision in Dick v Dick, 210 Mich App 576; 534 NW2d 185 (1995), as putative support for this holding. However, in Dick, p 589, when faced with a similar situation in which an arbitration agreement contained legally unenforceable provisions, "we reformed] the binding arbitration agreement to comport with the requirements of the statutes and the court rules.” In short, we struck the legally unenforceable provisions from the arbitration agreement as we would have done with any contract. It is puzzling that the majority has relied on Dick to reach a conclusion diametrically opposed to that reached in Dick.
I would treat the arbitration agreement presently in issue as this Court treated the arbitration agreement in dispute in Dick. I would strike the clauses that are contrary to the statutory arbitration act, MCL 600.5001 et seq.; MSA 27A.5001 et seq., that is, ¶ 20 and portions of ¶ ¶ 7 and 18.1 We would then be left with a wholly valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, as was the result in Dick. The matter would be remanded to the arbitrator for prompt resolution of the issues unlawfully submitted to the circuit court. Further review would be limited to that provided for in the statutory arbitration act.
More generally, it is clear from the arbitration agreement that the intention of the parties was to arbitrate their dispute. For the majority to declare the entire agreement invalid only frustrates the intention of the parties, who are still litigating the sale of a business that took place thirteen years ago._

 Paragraph 12 need not be struck. It provides only that "[t]he arbitrator may submit any issues of Contract interpretation to the Court” (emphasis supplied). Because the language is permissive, the statutory arbitration act is not necessarily violated by its inclusion.