Divorce; Challenge to arbitration award; MCR 3.602; Stipulation to binding arbitration; MCL 600.5071; Judicial review of arbitration awards; MCL 600.5079(1); Washington v Washington; Property division; MCR 3.211(B)(3); MCL 552.19; Invasion of separate property; MCL 552.401; MCL 552.23(1); Equitable distribution of property; Berger v Berger; Protective order; MCR 2.302(C)(8)

The court held that it had no grounds to set aside the arbitrator’s award in the parties’ divorce action. The parties submitted to binding arbitration. Defendant-ex-husband challenged the arbitration award, claiming the arbitrator erred in awarding plaintiff various property and challenging “the ‘piecemeal’ approach employed by the arbitrator.” The trial court found the arbitrator did not commit any errors permitting it “to invade the award, and entered a judgment of divorce consistent with the arbitrator’s orders.” On appeal, the court rejected his arguments that the arbitrator erred by finding a portion of plaintiff’s student loan debt was marital debt, by awarding an apartment in Egypt to plaintiff as her separate property, “and generally dividing the parties’ assets and debts unevenly and inequitably.” It noted that the arbitrator’s findings of facts were immune from review. It further noted that there was “evidence supporting the arbitrator’s decision to treat a portion of [plaintiff’s] student loan debt as marital debt.” As to the apartment, the arbitrator credited the evidence presented by plaintiff over defendant’s “conflicting and confusing accounts.” Aside from plaintiff’s “student loan debt and the Egyptian apartment, the arbitrator essentially divided the marital property on a 50-50 basis.” In addition, “the arbitrator made a factual finding that [defendant] diverted the personal loan proceeds, income tax refunds, and stimulus check and we may not interfere with that finding.” The court also rejected defendant’s claim that plaintiff “violated a protective order entered in the divorce proceedings by using materials provided during discovery regarding the pharmacy businesses to instigate regulatory investigations.” Although he made allegations about the conduct of plaintiff “and her attorney, he presented no evidence that either disclosed confidential information,” and could not show that “the trial court erred by denying his motions to vacate the arbitration awards based on [plaintiff’s] violation of the protective order.” Affirmed.