Fifth District Vacates $6,000 in Sanctions Against Wife.
The beginning sentences of In re Marriage of Grady and Britten, Case No. F054668 (5th Dist. Feb. 17, 2009) (unpublished) are ominous in tone: “Arbitration typically is viewed as a relatively fast, inexpensive way to resolve disputes. This view assumes the existence of a clear and complete agreement to arbitrate, a diligent arbitrator, and some measure of cooperation between the parties. This appeal illustrates that when these conditions are absent, arbitration can be slow, inefficient and expensive.”
The case involved wife’s appeal from $6,000 in sanctions imposed against her after she moved to disqualify an arbitrator that did not show up at the scheduled arbitration and then was dilatory in issuing a decision after spending two hours with the parties a week after the unattended arbitration session. The trial court initially sanctioned wife $10,000 when she challenged this whole process and moved to both disqualify the arbitrator and appoint a new arbitrator. The lower court retracted the initial sanctions award, decided wife had appropriately challenged the arbitrator, and then sanctioned her for a total of $6,000 ($1,000 of which were for attorney’s fees, likely under Family Code section 271).
Wife appealed, and won a reversal of the sanctions orders. The Fifth District also ordered that further proceedings take place in front of a different superior court judge.
The basis for the reversal was that the trial court should have considered wife’s argument that she had a basis for rescinding the contractual arbitration agreement in light of what had transpired. The arbitration did not take place on the agreed-upon date and before the specified arbitrator—these were factors that demonstrated a basis for rescission grounded upon material failure of consideration. Wife had the right to return to court and ask it to consider the rescission argument. This meant the sanctions award had to be vacated.