DARLENE E COX V SYLVAN TREETOPS RESORT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DARLENE E. COX and JERRY O. COX,
UNPUBLISHED
December 21, 2001
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
SYLVAN TREETOPS RESORT and MELLING
RESORTS INTERNATIONAL,
No. 224414
Otsego Circuit Court
LC No. 96-006683-NO
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Fitzgerald and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal as of right an order denying their motion to vacate or modify an
arbitration award. We affirm.
Plaintiff Darlene Cox (plaintiff) suffered serious injuries in a slip and fall accident on
defendants’ property. The parties submitted their claim to arbitration, and plaintiff was awarded
$80,000. Defendants’ motion in circuit court to vacate or modify the arbitration decision was
denied. On appeal, defendants argue that the arbitrator erroneously applied the law and
erroneously interpreted the facts.
Here, the parties’ arbitration agreement does not manifest the intent of the parties to have
the arbitration award enforceable by a circuit court. Thus, this case involves common law
arbitration rather than statutory arbitration. Hetrick v Friedman, 237 Mich App 264, 268; 602
NW2d 603 (1999); Tripp Excavating Contractor Inc v Jackson Co, 60 Mich App 221, 236, 237;
230 NW2d 556 (1975).
A common law arbitration award will be upheld absent instances of bad faith, fraud,
misconduct, or manifest mistake. Emmons v Lake States Ins, 193 Mich App 460, 466; 484
NW2d 712 (1992). The standard and scope of review of common law arbitration is limited to the
following factors: (1) fraud on the part of the arbitrator; (2) fraud or misconduct of the parties
affecting the result; (3) gross unfairness in the conduct of the proceeding; (4) want of jurisdiction
in the arbitrator; (5) violation of public policy; and (6) want of entirety in the award. Frazier v
Ford Motor Co, 364 Mich 648, 655; 112 NW2d 80 (1961). Defendants have not alleged any of
-1-
these factors with respect to any of their arguments.1 Rather, defendants allege only that
manifest mistake occurred when the arbitrator erroneously applied the law and erroneously
interpreted the facts. An arbitrator’s factual or legal conclusions are not proper subjects for
judicial review. Frazier, supra at 656; Tripp, supra at 251.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
1
Although defendants failed to assert an appealable issue with regard to their argument that the
arbitrator wrongfully failed to apply the collateral source rule, MCL 600.6303, we note that the
arbitrator was presented with evidence that Blue Cross/Blue Shield paid medical benefits on
behalf of plaintiff in the amount of $17,765 and that Blue Cross/Blue Shield placed a lien against
any arbitration award in this amount. Indeed, the arbitrator specifically referred to the medical
expenses of $17,765 in the arbitration award.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
