When it comes to kids and divorce, alternative dispute resolution is an option, but courts are ultimately responsible for protecting the best interests of children. CRS 14-10-128.5 authorizes court review of a dissolution of marriage arbitration award pursuant to the Arbitration Act, CRS 13-22-222, which favors confirmation of such awards. But, the trial court may review issues related to children de novo if a timely request is made. Here, an arbitrator issued a final award that included parenting time. Wife moved to confirm, but at a later hearing indicated she did not believe the award was in the best interest of the child. That request was made 42 days after the award, not 30 (as then required). The court of appeals held that the trial court lacked the authority to conduct a de novo review because the request was not timely. Thus, the trial court should have confirmed the entire award.
Tag Archives: Arbitration
General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC, d/b/a General Steel Corp. et. al., v. Harold Bacheller, III, 2012CO68 (November 27, 2012)
The First Amendment does not protect purely private arbitration from abuse of process claims when arbitration is not an activity involving the government. In this case, a former Employee wins a binding arbitration against an Employer who brought a claim for violation of an employment contract. Employee sued for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy. The trial court did not instruct the jury on the heightened burden on plaintiffs to show that the arbitration lacked a reasonable factual basis on all three claims. The jury found for the Employee and the court awarded treble exemplary damages. The Supreme Court upheld both the decision not to apply the heightened standards to purely private arbitration and its discretionary decision to treble exemplary damages based on in-house counsels’ willful and wanton abuse of litigation and discovery procedures.
Get off my land! That command, enforcing the exclusive use and possession of property, is a fundamental cornerstone of private property. It is also a basic requirement for determining whether an interest in property is a lot, which in turn affects whether a development project is subject to the Interstate Land Sale Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA). ILSFDA applies to developments of 100 lots or more. In this case, the owner of a fractional interest in a condominium project sought to rescind its purchase contract because it violated ILSFDA. It did not. The court affirmed dismissal, holding the statute did not apply because the fractional interest was not a “lot.” Unlike a timeshare, which permits exclusive use of a particular unit, a fractional share in some unit does not constitute exclusive use of a specific unit, and is not a “lot.” Lacking sufficient lots, ILSFDA did not apply.
In this case, attorneys clash over piercing the corporate veil. An LLC’s veil failed to shield a shareholder from being personally responsible for attorneys’ fees incurred in a veil-piercing lawsuit, following an arbitration award. Swinerton won an arbitration award against Beauvallon, an LLC owned by Nassi. Swinerton then brought a lawsuit to pierce Beauvallon’s veil to collect the arbitration award against Nassi. The trial court ruled for Swinerton, who then sought to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in the veil-piercing litigation, which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals reversed, and held that when an LLC’s corporate veil is pierced, shareholders are liable for all the LLC’s contractual obligations. Therefore, Swinerton could enforce the contract’s attorney-fee shifting provision to recover fees against Nassi on the veil-piercing action.