Faherty v. Faherty,
477 A.2d 1257 (1984)



Facts: Susan (P) and Roger (D) were divorced in 1977 and had four dependent children at that time. Prior to the divorce they executed a property settlement agreement that was incorporated into the divorce. The agreement had an arbitration clause pursuant to the American Arbitration Association rules and that the decision of the arbitrator was binding on the parties, arbitration was a condition precedent to access to the courts to resolve any problems. (D) moved for an order regarding past due alimony and child support. (D) claimed "(D) was in arrears for $24,500 in support payments and had defaulted on one of the equitable distribution promissory notes of $25,000. (D) cross moved seeking to compel arbitration. The Chancery issued an order to compel arbitration. The parties selected an arbitrator and submitted their respective claims. The arbitrator found for (D) and (D) moved in Chancery to confirm her awards in arbitration. (D) cross moved to vacate the arbitrator's award and for court hearings to modify his prior and future payments due to changed circumstances.The court confirmed the award and denied (D) relief (D) appealed.


Issue: (1) May parties bind themselves in separation agreements to arbitrate disputes over alimony? (2) May child support disputes be arbitrated as long as the court reviews the validity of the award, first, according to the limited statutory review to which all arbitration awards are subject, and second, by de novo review unless it is clear on the face of the award that the child is not adversely affected?

Rule:Child support portion of arbitrator's award in divorce case was not subject to heightened scrutiny, beyond that provided by statute, in order to protect interests of children, as award enforced their rights and protected their interest against father's claim of changed circumstances

Holding: (1) Yes (2) Yes. Judgment affirmed.
The Supreme Court, held that: (1) parties may bind themselves in separation agreements to arbitrate disputes over alimony; (2) better practice is for arbitrator in domestic dispute arbitrations to make reasonably detailed findings of fact upon which she or he bases arbitration award; (3) child support portion of arbitrator's award was not subject to heightened scrutiny, beyond that provided by statute, in order to protect interests of children, as award enforced their rights and protected their interest against father's claim of changed circumstances; and (4) there was no reason to vacate or modify award on ground that arbitrator so exceeded or so imperfectively executed his powers that a mutual, final and definite award upon subject matter submitted was not made.


Analysis:The parties were divorced and had four dependent children. Prior to their divorce, the parties, both of whom were represented by counsel, negotiated and executed a property settlement agreement with an arbitration clause. The trial court incorporated the agreement in the final judgment of divorce. Appellant father sought review of the arbitration award after appellee mother filed a proceeding in court to obtain arrears in child support. First, the courts should have reviewed the child support awards. Second, the courts should have conducted a de novo review unless it was clear on the face of the award that the award could not adversely affect the substantial best interests of the child. The court modified the appeals court judgment to correct errors in the appellee being granted alimony in the future since she had remarried and vacated part of that award, and in appellant not being credited for payment of real estate taxes in his accumulated arrears. The court otherwise found no reason to vacate or modify the arbitrator's award and affirmed the lower court. The arbitrator's award satisfied all of the statutory and public policy requirements for confirmation.