Chapter 9: Rules in Particular Actions
9.1Arbitration Under the Uniform Arbitration Act1 (UAA)
A.Construct and Scope of Arbitration Agreements
Beginning July 1, 2013, statutory arbitration is governed by the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), set out at MCL 691.1681 et seq. See 2012 PA 370, repealing Michigan’s former arbitration law, MCL 600.5001 et seq. “While the UAA provides that it ‘governs an agreement to arbitrate whenever made,’ MCL 691.1683(1), it also provides that ‘[t]his act does not affect an action or proceeding commenced . . . before this act takes effect,’ MCL 691.1713.” Fette v Peters Constr Co, 310 Mich App 535, 542 (2015).
“An arbitration agreement is a contract by which the parties forgo their rights to proceed in civil court in lieu of submitting their dispute to a panel of arbitrators.” Emerzian v North Bros Ford Inc, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2024) (citation omitted) (“An agreement to arbitrate is a matter of contract.”). “An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable[2] except on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.” MCL 691.1686(1).
“The primary task in the interpretation of a contract is to ascertain the intention of the parties, and, if the court determines that an arbitration agreement exists, whether its terms are enforceable.” Emerzian, ___ Mich App at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “To determine whether a dispute is exclusively subject to arbitration, courts must first determine whether an arbitration agreement has been reached by the parties.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “An arbitration agreement does not exist unless it was formed by the mutual assent of the parties.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A party cannot be required to arbitrate an issue which it has not agreed to submit to arbitration.” Id. at ___ (citation omitted). “A court determines whether an arbitration agreement exists by applying general contract principles.” Id. at ___. In Emerzian, “the parties agreed that plaintiff would lease a vehicle, that claims against defendant related to the lease would be subject to arbitration, and that the lease agreement was assigned.” Id. at ___ (“[T]he language of the arbitration provision in the parties’ lease agreement indicated the parties’ agreement to permissive arbitration of the claims plaintiff brought.”). Furthermore, the “defendant retained the right to invoke the arbitration provision in the lease agreement” “even though all financial rights under the lease had been assigned,” because “plaintiff’s claims against defendant were related to his lease of the vehicle under the agreement,” and “the entire agreement between the parties should be considered.” Id. at ___.
The court “ascertain[s] the intent of the parties at the time they entered into the agreement” “by examining the language of the agreement according to its plain and ordinary meaning.” Altobelli v Hartmann, 499 Mich 284, 295 (2016).3 In determining the scope of an arbitration agreement, “a party cannot be required to arbitrate an issue which it has not agreed to submit to arbitration.” Id. at 295 (cleaned up). The party seeking to avoid the agreement bears the burden of proof, not the party wishing to enforce the agreement. Id. “Ascertaining the arbitrability of an issue requires a court to consider whether the parties’ contract contains an arbitration provision, whether the disputed issue arguably comes within the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute is expressly exempted from arbitration by the contract.” Legacy Custom Builders v Rogers, 345 Mich App 514, 524 (2023).
“[A] court should not interpret a contract’s language beyond determining whether arbitration applies and should not allow the parties to divide their disputes between the court and an arbitrator.” Ware v Meemic Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2025) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “The reason for the rule is dispute bifurcation defeats the efficiency of arbitration and considerably undermines its value as an acceptable alternative to litigation, and contract provisions that assign new roles to courts and arbitrators impermissibly usurp the authority of the court rules and the arbitration statutes.” Id. at ___ (cleaned up). “As a result, [the Ware Court] declined to enforce a provision that gives courts the authority to determine the legal effect of a contract but requires the arbitration of damages and other factual issues.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). While “a trial court is required to act as a gatekeeper before claims are automatically submitted to arbitration[,] . . . the gatekeeper role of the trial court relates to issues regarding arbitrability.” Id. at ___. “Thus, if a referral to arbitration was the trial court’s first and only decision, such would not run afoul of the [bifurcation] rule discussed.” Id. at ___ (holding that “because the trial court decided the issue of coverage and then referred the case to arbitration, the case was effectively being bifurcated, which was improper”).
“As a general matter, Michigan’s public policy favors arbitration. But this general provision favoring arbitration does not go so far as to override foundational principles of contractual interpretation.” Lichon v Morse, 507 Mich 424, 437 (2021) (citation omitted). The expansion of this “application in the lower courts beyond collective bargaining agreements to a more general rule that parties are bound to arbitration if the disputed issue is ‘arguably’ within the arbitration clause . . . is not a rule [that has been] adopted outside the context of collective bargaining agreements[.]” Id. at 438. The “general practice of looking to federal precedent discussing the [National Labor Relations Act] to interpret the [state’s Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), MCL 423.201 et seq.] is simply inapplicable [where] the PERA is not at issue.” Lichon, 507 Mich at 438. “If litigating parties have an employment or other contractual relationship, one party will likely be able to find some factual connection, however remote, between their dispute and the relationship. But we require more than the barest factual connection for a claim to be relative to employment or another pertinent contractual relationship. In determining whether a claim is relative to employment, we adopt the approach that asks if the action could be maintained without reference to the contract or relationship at issue.” Id. at 440 (cleaned up).
The Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA) “does not apply to an arbitration between members of a voluntary membership organization if arbitration is required and administered by the organization.” MCL 691.1683(2). “However, a party to such an arbitration may request a court to enter an order confirming an arbitration award and the court may confirm the award or vacate the award for a reason contained in [MCL 691.1703(1)(a), MCL 691.1703(1)(b), or MCL 691.1703(1)(d)].” MCL 691.1683(2).
B.Waiver of Requirements or Restriction of Rights Under Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA)
1.Authority to Waive or Alter Requirements
“Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3)[4], a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may waive or the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of this act to the extent permitted by law.” MCL 691.1684(1). Waiver of the right to arbitrate may be either express or implied. Nexteer Auto Corp v Mando America Corp, 314 Mich App 391, 395 (2016).
Waiver of a contractual right to arbitration is not favored. Nexteer, 314 Mich App at 395. “The party arguing there has been a waiver of [the right to arbitration] bears a heavy burden of proof and must demonstrate knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration, acts inconsistent with the right to arbitrate, and prejudice resulting from the inconsistent acts.” Id. at 397 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “However, where there is an express waiver, the party seeking to enforce the waiver need not show prejudice.” Id. (finding an express waiver where the party stipulated in a case management order that the arbitration provision in the arbitration agreement did not apply to the dispute).
Whether the relevant circumstances establish a waiver of the right to arbitration is a question of law that is reviewed de novo, and the trial court’s factual determinations regarding the applicable circumstances are reviewed for clear error. Madison Dist Pub Sch v Myers, 247 Mich App 583, 588 (2001).
2.Prohibited Waivers or Restrictions
“Before a controversy arises that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate, a party to the agreement may not do any of the following:
(a) Waive or agree to vary the effect of the requirements of [MCL 691.1685(1), MCL 691.1686(1), MCL 691.1688, MCL 691.1697(1), MCL 691.1697(2), MCL 691.1706, or MCL 691.1708].
(b) Agree to unreasonably restrict the right under [MCL 691.1689] to notice of the initiation of an arbitration proceeding.
(c) Agree to unreasonably restrict the right under [MCL 691.1692] to disclosure of any facts by a neutral arbitrator.
(d) Waive the right under [MCL 691.1696] of a party to an agreement to arbitrate to be represented by a lawyer at any proceeding or hearing under this act, but an employer and a labor organization may waive the right to representation by a lawyer in a labor arbitration.” MCL 691.1684(2).
In addition, under MCL 691.1684(3), “[a] party to an agreement to arbitrate or arbitration proceeding may not waive, or the parties may not vary the effect of, the requirements of [MCL 691.1684] or [MCL 691.1683(1) or MCL 691.1683(3),5 MCL 691.1687, MCL 691.1694, MCL 691.1698, MCL 691.1700(4) or MCL 691.1700(5), MCL 691.1702, MCL 691.1703, MCL 691.1704, MCL 691.1705(1) or MCL 691.1705(2), MCL 691.1709, MCL 691.1710, or MCL 691.1711].”
C.Jurisdiction: Courts and Arbitrators
“An agreement to arbitrate that provides for arbitration in this state confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court to enter judgment on an award under [the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA)].” MCL 691.1706(2). “A court of this state that has jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties may enforce an agreement to arbitrate.” MCL 691.1706(1).
Judges and arbitrators have different roles in reviewing arbitration agreements: “The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate” whereas “[a]n arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.”6 MCL 691.1686(2)-(3). See also Registered Nurses, Registered Pharmacists Union v Hurley Med Ctr, 328 Mich App 528 (2019). “To ascertain the arbitrability of an issue, the court must consider whether there is an arbitration provision in the parties’ contract, whether the disputed issue is arguably within the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute is expressly exempt from arbitration by the terms of the contract.” Registered Nurses, Registered Pharmacists Union, 328 Mich App at 531, 536 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Whether a contract to arbitrate has terminated is a question to be decided by the courts, not by the arbitrator. 36th Dist Court v Mich AFSCME Council 25, 295 Mich App 502, 515 (2012), rev’d in part, lv den in part 493 Mich 879 (2012).7 Additionally, “the issue of whether a party breached a [collective bargaining agreement] involves the interpretation of a contract, which is a question of law that is decided by a court.” Registered Nurses, Registered Pharmacists Union, 328 Mich App at 531.
“If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders.” MCL 691.1686(4).
In order to receive judicial relief under the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), a party must request it:
“Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 691.17088], a request for judicial relief under this act must be made by motion to the court and heard in the manner provided by court rule for making and hearing motions.” MCL 691.1685(1).
“Unless a civil action is already pending between the parties, a complaint regarding the agreement to arbitrate must be filed and served as in other civil actions.” MCL 691.1685(2). “Notice of an initial motion under this act may be served with the summons and complaint in the manner provided by court rule for the service of a summons in a civil action.” Id. “Otherwise, notice of the motion must be given in the manner provided by court rule for serving motions in pending actions.” Id.
“A motion under [MCL 691.1685] shall be made in the court of the county in which the agreement to arbitrate specifies the arbitration hearing is to be held or, if the hearing has been held, in the court of the county in which it was held.” MCL 691.1707. “Otherwise, the motion may be made in the court of any county in which an adverse party resides or has a place of business or, if no adverse party has a residence or place of business in this state, in the court of any county in this state.” Id. “All subsequent motions shall be made in the court that heard the initial motion unless the court otherwise directs.” Id.
E.Specific Motions Heard by Court
1.Generally
“If a proceeding involving a claim referable to arbitration under an alleged agreement to arbitrate is pending in court, a motion under this section [to compel or stay arbitration] must be made in that court. Otherwise a motion under this section may be made in any court as provided in [MCL 691.17079].” MCL 691.1687(5).
If a party motions the court to order arbitration, “the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim alleged to be subject to the arbitration until the court renders a final decision under this section.” MCL 691.1687(6). If the court ultimately orders arbitration, “the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the arbitration.” MCL 691.1687(7). “If a claim subject to the arbitration is severable, the court may limit the stay to that claim.” Id.; see also MCR 3.602(C) (requiring a stay in an action involving an issue subject to arbitration if an order for arbitration or a motion for such an order has been made). Accordingly, the trial court erred when it summarily dismissed a lien foreclosure claim even though it correctly enforced the arbitration agreement because the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA) and Michigan Court Rules require the court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration. Legacy Custom Builders v Rogers, 345 Mich App 514, 526 (2023) (citing MCL 691.1687(6), MCL 691.1687(7), and MCR 3.602(C)). In Legacy, the Court of Appeals observed that “[h]ad the trial court stayed the lawsuit pending arbitration, instead of dismissing, it would have enforced the arbitration agreement while protecting [plaintiff’s] compliance with the limitations period and ability to enforce the lien after arbitration.” Legacy, ___ Mich App at ___.
“The court shall not refuse to order arbitration because the claim subject to arbitration lacks merit or grounds for the claim have not been established.” MCL 691.1687(4).
2.Other Party Refuses to Arbitrate
Where a party’s motion shows an arbitration agreement and alleges that another party refuses to arbitrate as agreed, the court must do the following:
“(a) If the refusing party does not appear or does not oppose the motion, order the parties to arbitrate.
(b) If the refusing party opposes the motion, proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.” MCL 691.1687(1).
The court must not order the parties to arbitrate under MCL 691.1687(1) if it determines there is no enforceable arbitration agreement. MCL 691.1687(3).
3.No Arbitration Agreement Exists
Where a party motions the court and alleges “that an arbitration proceeding has been initiated or threatened but that there is no agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue.” MCL 691.1687(2). If the court finds that an enforceable arbitration agreement exists, it must order the parties to arbitrate. Id. The court must not order the parties to arbitrate under MCL 691.1687(2) if it determines there is no enforceable arbitration agreement. MCL 691.1687(3).
4.Provisional Remedies
Two situations exist where, upon motion of a party, the court may enter an order “for provisional remedies to protect the effectiveness of the arbitration proceeding to the same extent and under the same conditions as if the controversy were the subject of a civil action”:
•before an arbitrator has been appointed and authorized to act under the UAA, for good cause shown, MCL 691.1688(1); or
•after an arbitrator has been appointed and authorized to act under the UAA “only if the matter is urgent and the arbitrator is not able to act timely or the arbitrator cannot provide an adequate remedy.” MCL 691.1688(2)(a)-(b). The provisional remedy under MCL 691.1688(2)(a) may include interim awards and may also be issued to “promote the fair and expeditious resolution of the controversy[.]” Id.
“A party does not waive a right of arbitration by making a motion under [MCL 691.1688(1)-(2)].” MCL 691.1688(3).
5.Appointment of Arbitrator
On motion of a party to the arbitration proceeding, the court must appoint an arbitrator when the parties have not agreed on a method for appointing an arbitrator, the agreed upon method fails, or an appointed arbitrator fails or is unable to act and a successor has not been appointed. MCL 691.1691(1). An arbitrator appointed by the court “has all the powers of an arbitrator designated in the agreement to arbitrate or an arbitrator appointed by the agreed method.” Id.
6.Consolidation of Separate Arbitration Proceedings
Unless the arbitration agreement prohibits the consolidation of claims, see MCL 691.1690(3), upon the motion of a party to the arbitration agreement, the court “may order consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings as to all or some of the claims[10] if all of the following apply:
(a) There are separate agreements to arbitrate or separate arbitration proceedings between the same persons or 1 of them is a party to a separate agreement to arbitrate or a separate arbitration proceeding with a third person.
(b) The claims subject to the agreements to arbitrate arise in substantial part from the same transaction or series of related transactions.
(c) The existence of a common issue of law or fact creates the possibility of conflicting decisions in the separate arbitration proceedings.
(d) Prejudice resulting from a failure to consolidate is not outweighed by the risk of undue delay or prejudice to the rights of or hardship to parties opposing consolidation.” MCL 691.1690(1).
7.Motions to Enforce Witness Attendance and Out-of-State Subpoena or Discovery Order
On motion by a party or the arbitrator, “[a] court may enforce a subpoena or discovery-related order for the attendance of a witness in this state and for the production of records and other evidence issued by an arbitrator in connection with an arbitration proceeding in another state on conditions determined by the court so as to make the arbitration proceeding fair, expeditious, and cost effective.” MCL 691.1697(7). An out-of-state subpoena or discovery-related order must be served and enforced in the manner provided by law for service and enforcement of subpoenas in a civil action in Michigan. Id.11
8.Expedited Order to Confirm Award
Under MCL 691.1698(1), after receiving a preaward ruling and requesting that the ruling be incorporated into an award, “[a] prevailing party may move the court for an expedited order to confirm the award under [MCL 691.1702], in which case the court shall summarily decide the motion. The court shall issue an order to confirm the award unless the court vacates, modifies, or corrects the award under [MCL 691.1703 or MCL 691.170412].”
9.Review of Arbitrator’s Award
“Judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision is narrowly circumscribed.” Mich Dept of State Police v Mich State Police Troopers Ass’n, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2023) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Every error of law committed by an arbitrator does not merit subsequent court intervention. TSP Servs, Inc v Nat’l-Std, LLC, 329 Mich App 615, 620 (2019). “A reviewing court has three options when a party challenges an arbitration award: (1) confirm the award, (2) vacate the award if obtained through fraud, duress, or other undue means, or (3) modify the award or correct errors that are apparent on the face of the award.” Krist v Krist, 246 Mich App 59, 67 (2001). See also MCL 691.1702; MCL 691.1703; MCL 691.1704; Mich State Police Troopers, ___ Mich App at ___ (“[a] court may also review an arbitrator’s award for an error of law that clearly appears on the face of the award or in the reasons stated by the arbitrator for the decision”).
“A court may not review an arbitrator’s factual findings or decision on the merits or engage in contract interpretation.” Mich Dep’t of State Police, ___ Mich App at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator, and instead may only decide whether the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the contract.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “If the arbitrator in granting the award did not disregard the terms of his employment and the scope of his authority as expressly circumscribed in the contract, judicial review effectively ceases.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“[I]n determining whether there is legal error, the court cannot engage in a review of an arbitrator’s mental process, but instead must review the face of the award itself[.]” TSP, 329 Mich App at 620 (2019) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “The error must be so material or so substantial as to have governed the award, and but for which the award would have been substantially otherwise.” Mich Dep’t of State Police, ___ Mich App at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Except with respect to awarding punitive damages or other exemplary relief under MCL 691.1701(1) or reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable expenses under MCL 691.1701(2), an arbitrator has the authority to “order remedies that the arbitrator considers just and appropriate under the circumstances of the arbitration proceeding” as part of an award. MCL 691.1701(3). “The fact that such a remedy could not or would not be granted by the court is not a ground for refusing to confirm an award under MCL 691.1702 or for vacating an award under section MCL 691.1703.” MCL 691.1701(3).
“After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award, the party may move the court for an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected under [MCL 691.1700 or MCL 691.1704] or is vacated under [MCL 691.1703].” MCL 691.1702. See Section 9.1(E)(9)(c) for information on modifying or correcting an award.
“On motion to the court by a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if any of the following apply:
(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means.
(b) There was any of the following:
(i) Evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator.
(ii) Corruption by an arbitrator.
(iii) Misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.
(c) An arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon showing of sufficient cause for postponement, refused to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise conducted the hearing contrary to [MCL 691.1695], so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.
(d) An arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.
(e) There was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection under [MCL 691.1695(3)] not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing.
(f) The arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in [MCL 691.1689] so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.” MCL 691.1703(1).
Timing. “A motion under [MCL 691.1703] must be filed within 90 days after the moving party receives notice of the award under [MCL 691.1699] or within 90 days after the moving party receives notice of a modified or corrected award under [MCL 691.1700], unless the moving party alleges that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means, in which case the motion must be made within 90 days after the ground is known or by the exercise of reasonable care would have been known by the moving party.” MCL 691.1703(2).
Arbitrator’s Powers. “Arbitrators must abide by the terms and conditions that grant them jurisdiction and authority to resolve a dispute.” Mich Dept of State Police v Mich State Police Troopers Ass’n, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2023). “Arbitrators can fairly be said to exceed their power whenever they act beyond the material terms of the contract from which they primarily draw their authority, or in contravention of controlling principles of law.” Id. at ___ (cleaned up). “An arbitrator may not act on his own sense of personal justice, but is confined to interpretation and application of the agreement.” Id. at ___ (cleaned up). “An arbitrator who refuses to abide by the terms of an agreement exceeds the limits upon which the contractual submission is based, exceeds the consensual authority bestowed upon him by the contract, and the award resulting therefrom is without legal sanction.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Although the judicial policy favoring labor arbitration warrants a strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitral awards, an award is properly vacated when that award is dependent upon . . . an arbitrator’s disregard and contravention of provisions expressly limiting arbitral authority.” Id. at ___ (citation omitted). Accordingly, where a collective bargaining agreement gives the arbitrator “the power to determine whether an employee was discharged without just cause,” and the “arbitrator concluded the grievant was discharged without good cause and instead determined that unpaid suspension was proper,” the trial court “erred by vacating the arbitrator’s award.” Id. at ___ (noting that although a police trooper’s behavior might tarnish the reputation of the Michigan Department of State Police, it “is not the type of ‘well defined and dominant’ public policy violation that would warrant overturning the arbitrator’s ruling.”)
It is not within an arbitrator’s powers to order alimony (absent a showing of fraud) in a divorce case where the parties have already agreed that it would not be awarded and would be forever barred. Krist v Krist, 246 Mich App 59, 62-65 (2001) (finding, however, that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority because his award was determined to be a division of marital property rather than an award of alimony).
Where the terms of the arbitration agreement limited the scope of arbitration to the issues raised in the pleadings, the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in rendering an award based on an issue in the defendant’s counter-complaint even though the issue was not addressed in the parties’ arbitration summaries. Nordlund & Assoc, Inc v Hesperia, 288 Mich App 222, 229 (2010). The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that whether the issue was raised in the arbitration summaries was irrelevant to determining whether the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his powers granted by the terms of the arbitration agreement. Id.
Rehearing. “If the court vacates an award on a ground other than that set forth in [MCL 691.1703(1)(e)], it may order a rehearing.” MCL 691.1703(3). “If the award is vacated on a ground stated in [MCL 691.1703(1)(a)] or [MCL 691.1703(1)(b)], the rehearing shall be before a new arbitrator.” MCL 691.1703(3). “If the award is vacated on a ground stated in [MCL 691.1703(1)(c), MCL 691.1703(1)(d), or MCL 691.1703(1)(f)], the rehearing may be before the arbitrator who made the award or the arbitrator’s successor.” MCL 691.1703(3). “The arbitrator shall render the decision in the rehearing within the same time as that provided in [MCL 691.1699(2)] for an award.” MCL 691.1703(3). However, the court may not return the matter to the arbitrator for an expansion of the record. Saveski v Tiseo Architects, Inc, 261 Mich App 553, 558 (2004).
Arbitrator Partiality, Corruption, or Misconduct. Upon timely objection by a party, a court may vacate an award on the grounds of partiality, corruption, or misconduct by the arbitrator, see MCL 691.1703(1)(b), if the arbitrator fails to make certain required disclosures under MCL 691.1692(1)-(2). MCL 691.1692(4). Failure to “disclose a known, direct, and material interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding or a known, existing, and substantial relationship with a party is presumed to act with evident partiality under [MCL 691.1703(1)(b)].” MCL 691.1692(5).
If the parties agree to an arbitration organization’s procedures or to procedures for challenging the arbitrator before an award is made, “substantial compliance with those procedures is a condition precedent to a motion to vacate an award on that ground under [MCL 691.1703(1)(b)].” MCL 691.1692(6).
Error of Law. “A reviewing court may vacate an arbitration award where it finds an error of law that is apparent on its face and so substantial that, but for the error, the award would have been substantially different.” Collins v BCBSM, 228 Mich App 560, 567 (1998). See generally MCL 691.1703(1)(c).
Denial of Motion to Vacate. “If the court denies a motion to vacate an award, it shall confirm the award unless a motion to modify or correct the award is pending.” MCL 691.1703(4).
c.Modification or Correction of Award
“On motion made within 90 days after the moving party receives notice of the award under [MCL 691.1699] or within 90 days after the moving party receives notice of a modified or corrected award under [MCL 691.1700], the court shall modify or correct the award if any of the following apply:
(a) There was an evident mathematical miscalculation or an evident mistake in the description of a person, thing, or property referred to in the award.
(b) The arbitrator has made an award on a claim not submitted to the arbitrator and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision on the claims submitted.
(c) The award is imperfect in a matter of form not affecting the merits of the decision on the claims submitted.” MCL 691.1704(1).
“If a motion made under [MCL 691.1704(1)] is granted, the court shall modify or correct and confirm the award as modified or corrected.” MCL 691.1704(2). “Otherwise, unless a motion to vacate is pending, the court shall confirm the award.” Id.
“A motion to modify or correct an award under [MCL 691.1704] may be joined with a motion to vacate the award.” MCL 691.1704(3).
10.Judgment on Award
An arbitration agreement “that provides for arbitration in this state confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court to enter judgment on an award under [the UAA].” MCL 691.1706(2). See Section 9.1(C) for more information on jurisdiction.
“On granting an order confirming, vacating without directing a rehearing, modifying, or correcting an award, the court shall enter a judgment that conforms with the order.” MCL 691.1705(1). “The judgment may be recorded, docketed, and enforced as any other judgment in a civil action.” Id.
“A court may allow reasonable costs of the motion and subsequent judicial proceedings.” MCL 691.1705(2). “On request of a prevailing party to a contested judicial proceeding under [MCL 691.1702, MCL 691.1703, or MCL 691.1704], the court may add reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable expenses of litigation incurred in a judicial proceeding after the award is made to a judgment confirming, vacating without directing a rehearing, modifying, or correcting an award.” MCL 691.1705(3).
F.Civil Immunity and Competency to Testify for Arbitrator, Arbitration Organization, or Arbitration Organization Representative
“An arbitrator or an arbitration organization acting in that capacity is immune from civil liability to the same extent as a judge of a court of this state acting in a judicial capacity.” MCL 691.1694(1). This civil immunity “supplements any immunity under other law.” MCL 691.1694(2).
An arbitrator does not lose his or her civil immunity for failing to “disclose to all parties to the agreement to arbitrate and arbitration proceeding and to any other arbitrators any known facts [or any facts that the arbitrator learns after accepting appointment] that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the arbitrator[.]” MCL 691.1692(1)-(2); MCL 691.1694(3).13
In judicial, administrative, or similar proceedings, arbitrators and arbitration organization representatives are “not competent to testify, and may not be required to produce records as to any statement, conduct, decision, or ruling occurring during the arbitration proceeding, to the same extent as a judge of a court of this state acting in a judicial capacity.” MCL 691.1694(4). The “plain language of the statute prohibits compelling arbitrators from giving any factual evidence as a witness regarding any statements, conduct, decisions, or rulings that [they] may have made during the arbitration proceeding.” Elder v Gordon, 343 Mich App 388, 392 (2022) (holding that while the “arbitrator could have been asked to clarify the factual question at issue in [the] case before the arbitration award was finalized and that underlying case was dismissed,” “to ask the arbitrator a factual question [after], in a separate proceeding, would violate MCL 691.1694(4)”).
However, MCL 691.1694(4) does not apply in the following situations:
•“to the extent necessary to determine the claim of an arbitrator, arbitration organization, or representative of the arbitration organization against a party to the arbitration proceeding,” MCL 691.1694(4)(a);
•“to a hearing on a motion to vacate an award under [MCL 691.1703(1)(b) or MCL 691.1703(1)(c)] if the moving party establishes prima facie that a ground for vacating the award exists,” MCL 691.1694(4)(b).
The court must award an arbitrator, arbitration organization, or arbitration organization representative “reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable expenses of litigation” in the following circumstances:
•if an individual commences a civil action against the arbitrator, organization, or representative that arises from their services, or if a person seeks to compel an arbitrator or representative to testify or produce records in violation of MCL 691.1694(4), and
•the court determines that the arbitrator, organization, or representative has civil immunity or that the arbitrator or representative is not competent to testify. MCL 691.1694(5).
“An appeal may be taken from any of the following:
(a) An order denying a motion to compel arbitration.
(b) An order granting a motion to stay arbitration.
(c) An order confirming or denying confirmation of an award.
(d) An order modifying or correcting an award.
(e) An order vacating an award without directing a rehearing.
(f) A final judgment entered under this act.” MCL 691.1708(1).
“An appeal under [MCL 691.1708] shall be taken as from an order or a judgment in a civil action.” MCL 691.1708(2).
A trial court’s decision to enforce, vacate, or modify a statutory arbitration award is reviewed de novo. Tokar v Albery, 258 Mich App 350, 352 (2003).