DICKSON, Justice.
This appeal challenges an award of attorney's fees in a dissolution of marriage case by a family law arbitrator under the Family Law Arbitration Act. We affirm the fee award.
The parties were married in 1993 and are the parents of one child, a daughter, born in January 2007. Dissolution proceedings began in 2012, and a year later, the parties signed an agreement to arbitrate under the Family Law Arbitration Act (FLAA). See Ind.Code § 34-57-5-1 et seq. The FLAA permits parties in a dissolution of marriage action to resolve their disputes through arbitration rather than in a trial before a trial judge. The
The family law arbitrator's findings of fact in this case are undisputed. Noting that this had "been a very contentious divorce," Appellant's App'x at 22, the family law arbitrator entered extensive findings of fact regarding the legal and primary physical custody of the parties' daughter, parenting time, child support, parochial school expenses, healthcare expenses for their daughter, dependency exemptions for tax purposes of the husband and the wife, spousal maintenance for the wife, rehabilitative maintenance for the wife, division of marital property, and the allocation of attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
The husband appealed only the arbitrator's attorney fee award. In his appeal, the husband presents what he identifies as a single issue: that the arbitrator's order requiring the husband to immediately pay $95,000 toward the wife's attorney's fees was "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case." Appellant's Br. at 1. In the argument section of his brief, the husband further asserts that the rationale was inconsistent with the arbitrator's findings. The wife argues to the contrary in her response and also cross-appeals regarding other issues.
To support his argument for reversal of the attorney fee award, the husband argues that the proper standard of review of a family law arbitrator's decision is the same standard currently used to review trial court decisions regarding attorney's fees. Under this standard, he argues that the family law arbitrator's decision ought to be vacated entirely or remanded to the trial court with instructions to receive "evidence and/or argument on the issue of
The FLAA expressly authorizes family law arbitrators to award attorney's fees in dissolution cases. Ind.Code § 34-57-5-12(b). It also provides that "[a]n appeal may be taken after the entry of judgment under section 7(d) of this chapter as may be taken after a judgment in a civil action." Ind.Code § 34-57-5-11 (emphasis added). Section 7 directs the arbitrator to send a copy of the written findings of fact and conclusions of law to "the court," which upon receipt "shall enter: (1) judgment; and (2) an order for an entry on the docket regarding the judgment." Ind.Code § 34-57-5-7. The FLAA contains no other provision specifying the nature and scope of appellate review to be applied to an arbitration award.
In contrast, for cases submitted to arbitration under the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), review of the arbitration award by a trial court and an appeal therefrom is expressly provided. See Ind.Code § 34-57-2-14 and Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19. But, such review is explicitly limited to modification or correction on the following grounds:
Ind.Code § 34-57-2-14(a). In addition, analogous to the FLAA, the UAA includes language providing that an appeal is to be taken "in the manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in a civil action." Ind.Code § 34-57-2-19 (emphasis added). Cf. Ind.Code § 34-57-5-11 (allowing appeal "as may be taken after judgment in a civil action."). But the FLAA does not expressly prescribe a narrow, deferential review of arbitration awards as does the UAA. The wife invites this Court to import the narrow and deferential review of the UAA when determining the nature and scope of appellate review under the FLAA.
Without directly addressing this issue, the Court of Appeals has applied the standard of review for trial court dissolution decisions to the review of FLAA arbitration awards. In Ozug v. Ozug, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the family law arbitrator's order after determining that the findings of fact and conclusions of law in that case were "insufficient to support" an order of spousal maintenance under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-2(1) and "insufficient to support" a deviation from the presumptive equal distribution of private property under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-5. 4 N.E.3d 827, 830 (Ind.Ct. App.2014), trans. not sought. Essentially, the Court of Appeals in Ozug performed appellate review of a family law arbitrator's decisions on spousal maintenance and
Under the FLAA, the decisional powers of an arbitrator are essentially coextensive with those of a trial judge in a dissolution action. The FLAA provides:
Ind.Code § 34-57-5-2(e) (emphasis added). Additionally, the FLAA directs that a "family law arbitrator shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law[,].... shall send a copy of the written findings of fact and conclusions of law to... the [trial] court[,].... [and] [a]fter the court has received a copy of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court shall enter ... judgment...." Ind.Code § 34-57-5-7. Like a trial court in a civil action for dissolution of marriage, a "family law arbitrator shall: divide the property of the parties ... in a just and reasonable manner.... [And] [t]he division of marital property ... must comply with IC 31-15-7-5."
The fact that the arbitrator under the FLAA performs essentially the same function as a trial judge in a marriage dissolution case strongly favors application of the same standard of appellate review to both trial court decisions and arbitration awards. This is especially true in the absence of the legislature's choice not to include in the FLAA the narrow, deferential
When a trial court dissolution decree — or here, a family law arbitration award — is accompanied by findings of fact, "the court on appeal shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court [or family law arbitrator] to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Ind. Tr. Rule 52(A). In Quillen v. Quillen, we applied this "clearly erroneous" standard to the review of a trial court's award of attorney's fees in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind.1996). In reviewing findings of fact and conclusions of law, an appellate court applies "a two-tiered standard of review by first determining whether the evidence supports the findings and then whether the findings support the judgment." Weigel v. Weigel, 24 N.E.3d 1007, 1010 (Ind.Ct.App.2015), trans. not sought. In the present case, the husband's challenge is based on the second prong — asserting that the findings do not support the judgment, that is, the family law arbitration award. In evaluating whether the findings support the judgment (or award), we will reverse "only upon a showing of `clear error' — that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Egly v. Blackford Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (Ind.1992). "[T]he reviewing court may affirm the judgment on any legal theory supported by the findings." Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920, 923 (Ind. 1998).
The husband challenges the arbitrator's award requiring that he immediately reimburse
Like a family law trial court,
The arbitrator's conclusions, findings, and award comprised twenty-seven pages of single-spaced paragraphs extensively addressing various factors. The arbitrator determined the value of the marital estate, its division, and the economic circumstances of each of the parties; the relative education of each of the parties, their job opportunities, and their actual incomes as well as their potential incomes; the behavior of the parties, their level of cooperation in this case, and how attorney's fees were incurred and funded by each of the parties; and various aspects of the education and support of the parties' daughter. The husband does not argue that the family law arbitrator made improper findings of fact. Rather, his challenge is directed to the amount of the award as compared to his ability to pay. He also contends that the arbitration award contradicts the arbitrator's own findings, specifically that the arbitrator failed to appropriately consider the wife's potential income and the resulting ratio of the parties' relative incomes; that the wife received $50,000 more than the husband in the property division; that the wife's attorney's fees were paid by the
The crux of the husband's argument compares his $95,000 attorney's fee award obligation against his share of the marital estate, "approximately $94,000 ... plus forty percent of some unvalued coins." Id. In making this claim, the husband relies on the fact that the family law arbitrator did not expressly assign a particular value to the parties' extensive coin collection. To the contrary, we find that the sizeable coin collection and its disposition is highly relevant to our review. The family law arbitrator recognized the coins in her findings and stated that "[t]hroughout the marriage, Husband invested income earned during the marriage in numismatic and ancient coins.... believ[ing] that the investment was a good retirement investment strategy." Appellant's App'x at 34 (Findings of Fact 136, 137). The arbitrator then noted that the wife had hired an appraiser who valued the gold and silver coins at $242,954.55 and that husband had hired an appraiser who valued the ancient coins at $60,635.00. Appellant's App'x at 34-35 (Findings of Fact 135-39); Appellee's App'x at 37, 41. Based on those findings, the family law arbitrator then ordered "that the gold and silver coins be divided by [wife's appraiser] and the [ancient] coins be divided by [husband's appraiser].... Husband shall receive forty percent (40%) of the divided coins and Wife shall receive the remaining sixty percent (60%) thereof." Appellant's App'x at 35 (Findings of Fact 149-51). These findings clearly imply that the aggregate value of the gold and silver coins, and the ancient coins, totaled $303,589.55, of which the husband's 40% share would be worth $121,435.82. Combining his coin collection share with the additional admitted $94,000 share of the marital estate, the husband received more than $215,000.
The husband's resulting property share dramatically alters the husband's basic argument. Instead of comparing his obligation to pay $95,000 toward the wife's attorney's fees to a net marital share of $94,000, the fee award must be compared to the husband's receipt of over $215,000 in marital property. This fact renders unavailing all of the husband's arguments. Seen in this light, the arbitrator's attorney fee award is not against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. "We do not reweigh the evidence; rather we consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the judgment." Yoon v. Yoon, 711 N.E.2d 1265, 1268 (Ind.1999). Our recalculation of the husband's share of the marital property provides a legal theory supported by the findings, thus warranting our affirmance of the trial court judgment. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d at 923. We conclude that the award of attorney's fees in this case is supported by the findings, and that the husband has failed to show clear error that leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
In the appellate review of an award under the Family Law Arbitration Act, the proper standard of review is not the narrow, highly deferential standard prescribed by the Uniform Arbitration Act but rather the same standard of appellate review that applies to trial court decisions in marriage dissolution cases with entered findings of fact and conclusions of law — the clearly erroneous standard prescribed by Indiana Trial Rule 52(A). In this case, the family law arbitrator's award satisfies that standard. The husband has failed to establish that the award of attorney's fees is not supported by the arbitrator's findings. We are not persuaded to a firm conviction that a mistake has been made, which is required for clear error. The attorney's fees award is not clearly erroneous and the judgment entering the arbitration award is hereby affirmed.
RUSH, C.J., and RUCKER, DAVID, and MASSA, JJ., concur.
