4. The few state courts that have addressed the "creating |
jurisdiction" issue are similarly split. In Dick v. Dick, 534 |
N.W.2d 185, 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994), the Michigan Court of |
Appeals characterized the contractual opt-in provision before |
it (which permitted appeal to the courts of "substantive |
issues" pertaining to the arbitrator's award) as an attempt to |
create "a hybrid form of arbitration" that ["did] not comport |
with the requirements of the [Michigan] arbitration statute." |
The Michigan court refused to approve the broadened judicial |
review and held that the parties were instead "required to |
proceed according to the [Michigan arbitration statute]." The |
appellate court observed further that "[t]he parties' |
agreement to appellate review in this case is reminiscent of a |
mechanism under which the initial ruling is by a private |
judge, not an arbitrator. * * * What the parties agreed to is |
binding arbitration. Thus, they are not entitled to the type |
of review |
[of the merits of the award] they agreed to." |