781.708.4445

info@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

Good News and Bad News: Arbitration Just Became a Little Bit More Final

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Katz, Nannis & Solomon, PC v. Levine

Late last year, we anticipated the decision in this case, and expressed the hope that the SJC would rule that parties may contract for levels of review of arbitration awards that are broader than those expressed in M.G.L., ch. 251, the Massachusetts version of the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA). We felt, and still believe, that many family law counsel and clients shy away from this private, efficient and effective private dispute resolution methodology, for fear of giving up traditional litigation rights of appeal for errors of law and abuse of discretion. Well, the SJC didn't it.

In Katz, Nannis & Solomon, P.C. v. Levine, an accounting firm partner, Bruce Levine (no relation) was purged from his firm for reasons that the other parties characterized as "for cause"; and such a termination was, under the firm agreement, deemed to be "involuntary", and therefore subject to forfeiture of both share redemption payments and deferred compensation benefits. Also, the partners alleged that Mr. Levine's conduct ran afoul of the non-compete provisions of the agreement, demanding damages. All matters were subject to mandatory binding arbitration, but accompanied by contractual rights of court review that exceeded those of the UAA, if short of full appellate rights.

When Mr. Levine suffered an adverse arbitration award, he pressed the agreed form of review, which his ex-partners challenged, on the basis that the UAA precludes the right to contractual rights of review. The trial judge sustained the challenge, ruling that UAA review provisions are exclusive and preclusive of any additionally negotiated review rights; and Mr. Levine appealed. The SJC took the case on direct appellate review.

The adverse award ripened into a full-fledged disaster for Mr. Levine (nearly $1.75 million plus interest) when the SJC ruled that the UAA trumps contractual efforts to deviate from its extremely narrow grounds of review, as a matter of law. Mr. Levine complained in his reply brief that the expanded right of review was an essential element of the agreement to arbitrate, and its deletion would nullify the entire arbitration clause, thus rendering the award void. The SJC dispatched the claim as too little, too late, since Mr. Levine had not raised the issue either in the court below, or even in his brief-in-chief: harsh result, perhaps, but not a particularly surprising one, on the appellate record described.

While the decision seems consistent with underlying law, and the UAA policy that arbitration awards should be quite nearly final when issued (hence, the good news) we regret the outcome in the family law context (hence, the bad news). As divorce mediators and arbitrators, we are all about expanding people's rights, and not narrowing them. If constricted review discourages an otherwise useful and efficient process for parties engaged in domestic relations agony, why shouldn't they be able to devise their own intermediate rights of review, if it will make both parties more amenable, potentially saving the parties years of costly and frustrating litigation of cases.

Since the SJC decision is one of statutory construction, and not constitutionally based, our legislature could, of course, adopt broader review rights for family law cases exclusively, as has occurred elsewhere. One day, perhaps…



Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

LDRC family law arbitrator Matrimonial Arbitration Levine Dispute Resolutions divorce mediations traditional negotiations divorce arbitrators health insurance support orders divorce lawyers divorce agreement divorce mediators Self-adjusting alimony orders divorce arbitrator rehabilitative alimony family law Family Law Arbitration Twinkies SJC dispute resolution divorce judgment Baseball Players family law mediation mediator separation Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC Massachusetts divorce lawyers Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act alimony health coverage conciliation fraud Massachusetts lawyers mediation mediations disputes Levine Dispute Resolution Massachusetts lawyer Chouteau Levine facilitated negotiations family and probate law disputes divorce mediator alimony statute med/arb MLB labor agreement Same Sex Marriage how baseball arbitration works divorce litigation The Seven Sins of Alimony Defense of Marriage Act divorce and family law mediators Divorce Agreements child support divorced Cohabitation alimony law divorce and family law Massachusetts alimony and child support pre-ARA alimony Baseball alimony reform legislation lawyers alimony orders family support lawyer-attended mediation divorce process Major League Baseball Arbitration Alimony Reform Act arbitrator Obamacare mediators Child Support Guidelines IRC §2704 med-arb Divorce arbitrators DOMA special master General term alimony resolve disputes Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly litigation private dispute resolution divorce arbitration Levine Dispute Resolution Center divorce mediation annulment self-adjusting alimony Massachusetts alimony COLA Boston medical benefits high-risk methodology family mediation arbitration family law arbitrators Baseball Arbitration Massachusetts divorce mediators Uniform Arbitration Act