Action involving residential construction contracts; Motion to vacate an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded her powers; MCR 3.602(J)(2)(c); Effect of language giving an arbitrator authority to act under a repealed statute; The Michigan Arbitration Act; Principle that an unambiguous contract should be enforced as written; Lebenbom v UBS Fin Servs, Inc

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award in this case involving residential construction contracts. He contracted with defendant for construction on his home. He later sued alleging breach of contract and conversion, claiming defendant terminated the contracts and failed to return his deposits. The case went to arbitration and the arbitrator awarded plaintiff $14,500. He then moved to reopen the case and vacate the arbitration award on the basis the arbitrator exceeded her powers. Ultimately, the trial court entered judgment in the amount of $14,500 to reflect the arbitration award and an order denying plaintiff’s prior motion to vacate the award. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court should not have treated the arbitration award as binding, and erred by upholding it, because the arbitration clause gave the arbitrator authority to act under a repealed statute. “[T]he trial court appropriately found a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The clause explicitly compels arbitration and provides rules under which the arbitration should be conducted outside of” the Michigan Arbitration Act. Despite the later reference to the statute, “plaintiff can make no legitimate argument that the clause was ambiguous or he did not understand that by signing the contracts, he agreed to arbitrate any and all claims, and the trial court appropriately struck that portion of the clause granting power to the arbitrator under the repealed arbitration statute.” In addition, plaintiff “provided no argument or factual support that the arbitrator exceeded her powers for any reason other than that the arbitration clause contained a repealed statute . . . .” He presented “no evidence that she conducted the arbitration pursuant to that repealed statute, or that the award itself went beyond the material terms of the contract.” Indeed, the trial court’s order “compelling arbitration specifically stated that arbitration should be conducted in accordance ‘with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of either the Better Business Bureau or the American Arbitration Association,’ and the award of plaintiff’s security deposit is consistent with another provision in the parties’ contracts . . . .” Finally, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by upholding the arbitration award as binding “because ‘[n]owhere in the [American Arbitration Act] Rules do they indicate that a matter is “binding” simply because the matter is arbitrated.’” The arbitration clause itself “explicitly mandated binding arbitration, so we need not specifically examine the rules of the American Arbitration Act.” Affirmed.