AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• After their divorce, the parties agreed to binding arbitration to value and divide certain retirement accounts. The arbitration was challenged by the Wife on several grounds, including the validity of the arbitration process and the division of assets determined by the arbitrator. The Husband cross-appealed the denial of his attorney's fees and sought attorney's fees for the appeal.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Angela Jewell, District Judge: Dissolution of marriage granted and marital settlement agreement adopted (para 5).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Issued a "stipulated order" for arbitration under Section 40-4-7.2, without parties' signatures but noted as "Agreed upon in open [court]" (para 14).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the arbitration decision and denied Husband's motion for attorney's fees (para 22).

Parties' Submissions

• Wife: Argued that the arbitration was invalid due to lack of a signed agreement, her due process rights were violated, the arbitrator's decision was incorrect, and the arbitrator acted fraudulently (para 23).
• Husband: Contended Wife's challenge was untimely and that the merits of the arbitrator's decision were outside the court's scope of review. Also argued for attorney's fees due to Wife's untimely and frivolous challenge (paras 21, 23).

Legal Issues

• Whether the arbitration was valid despite the absence of a signed written agreement by the parties.
• Whether the Wife's due process rights were violated.
• Whether the arbitrator's decision was correct and made without fraud or undue means.
• Whether the Husband is entitled to attorney's fees for the arbitration challenge and the appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision and denied the Husband's request for attorney's fees on appeal.

Reasons

• Validity of the Court’s Order to Arbitrate: The Court of Appeals found that the issue of the arbitration's validity due to the lack of a signed agreement was not preserved for appeal, as both parties had participated willingly in the arbitration process without objection (paras 24-25).
  Violation of Wife’s Constitutional Rights: The Court refused to consider the Wife's due process argument due to her failure to support the argument with citations to legal authority and the record (para 26).
  The Merits of the Arbitrator’s Decision: The Court held that the district court properly limited its review to the statutory grounds for vacating or modifying an arbitration award, finding no evidence of corruption, fraud, undue means, evident partiality, misconduct, or exceeding of powers by the arbitrator (paras 27-31).
  Propriety of Arbitration Under Section 40-4-7.2(V): The Court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's finding that the arbitrator acted properly and that the Wife failed to substantiate a case for reversal under the statutory grounds (paras 32-33).
  Husband’s Cross-Appeal for Attorney’s Fees: The Court affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion and denying the Husband's request for attorney's fees on appeal due to the absence of a frivolous appeal or bad faith by the Wife (paras 34-36).