A Recent New Jersey Appeals Court Decision Highlights The Important Differences Between Arbitration and Mediation
A New Jersey appeals court recently rejected a litigant’s attempt to overturn a binding arbitration award based on the fact that the homeowners’ association mistakenly believed it was engaged in mediation. The decision highlights the important differences between mediation and arbitration.
While mediation and arbitration can resolve a business disagreement short of litigation, the dispute resolution mechanisms are vastly different. During mediation, a neutral third party is called on to help negotiate a settlement. The job of the mediator is to help the parties find common ground rather than make any binding decision regarding the dispute.
During arbitration, a neutral third party is also appointed to resolve the business dispute. However, much like a judge, the arbitrator’s decision is generally final. The process is much more formal than mediation, but still offers many advantages over litigation, including a faster and less-costly resolution.
NJ Court Upholds Arbitration Award
The Appellate Division’s recent decision in Marano v. The Hills Highlands Master Association highlights that the substance of the dispute resolution mechanism is more important than the label. The case involves liability for a flood in the backyard of plaintiffs Richard and Eileen Marano. In March 2014, the plaintiffs’ attorney demanded that the Hills Highlands Master Association (Association) arbitrate their disputes related to the flooding in accordance with the Association’s bylaws.
The parties eventually agreed to retain the services of a retired judge to resolve the claims. The uncertainty arose when the retired New Jersey judge forwarded a form agreement to the parties that called for mediation. Although the parties executed the document, which was entitled “civil mediation agreement,” plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to the retired judge to point out that although the document “refer[red] to this proceeding as a `mediation,'” plaintiffs “believe[d] that it is properly an arbitration proceeding for which you will be asked to render an award.” The Association’s counsel never responded or questioned plaintiffs’ assertion as to the nature of the retired judge’s undertaking.
After the proceedings concluded, the retired judge rendered an arbitration award, which directed that the Association hire a contractor to make certain repairs and advance the funds for the work subject to reimbursement from numerous other affected lot owners who were not parties to any of the prior proceedings. In confirming the award, the motion judge concluded that although at times the parties’ use of the words “arbitration” and “mediation” in the record had been inconsistent, there was no question but that the parties engaged in binding arbitration before the retired judge. The Association appealed, contending that the parties did not arbitrate but instead merely mediated their disputes.
The Appellate Division rejected the Association’s argument. “With the exception of the retired judge’s mistake in having the parties execute a document memorializing the terms of a ‘civil mediation,’ there is no doubt that the parties agreed to and in fact participated in binding arbitration,” the appeals court held. In reaching its decision, the panel highlighted that there was “no evidence in the record on appeal to suggest that the Association ever asserted that the parties were merely mediating and were not arbitrating their disputes.”
Given that many business contracts call for either mediation or arbitration, or both at different times, often sequentially, it is important for businesses to understand how they differ. Since the terms can sometimes be used interchangeably, it is also imperative to verify that the dispute mechanism you enter matches the one called for in the agreement.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Joel Kreizman, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Understanding the Key Differences Between Arbitration and Mediation
Author: Ira E. Kreizman
A Recent New Jersey Appeals Court Decision Highlights The Important Differences Between Arbitration and Mediation
A New Jersey appeals court recently rejected a litigant’s attempt to overturn a binding arbitration award based on the fact that the homeowners’ association mistakenly believed it was engaged in mediation. The decision highlights the important differences between mediation and arbitration.
While mediation and arbitration can resolve a business disagreement short of litigation, the dispute resolution mechanisms are vastly different. During mediation, a neutral third party is called on to help negotiate a settlement. The job of the mediator is to help the parties find common ground rather than make any binding decision regarding the dispute.
During arbitration, a neutral third party is also appointed to resolve the business dispute. However, much like a judge, the arbitrator’s decision is generally final. The process is much more formal than mediation, but still offers many advantages over litigation, including a faster and less-costly resolution.
NJ Court Upholds Arbitration Award
The Appellate Division’s recent decision in Marano v. The Hills Highlands Master Association highlights that the substance of the dispute resolution mechanism is more important than the label. The case involves liability for a flood in the backyard of plaintiffs Richard and Eileen Marano. In March 2014, the plaintiffs’ attorney demanded that the Hills Highlands Master Association (Association) arbitrate their disputes related to the flooding in accordance with the Association’s bylaws.
The parties eventually agreed to retain the services of a retired judge to resolve the claims. The uncertainty arose when the retired New Jersey judge forwarded a form agreement to the parties that called for mediation. Although the parties executed the document, which was entitled “civil mediation agreement,” plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to the retired judge to point out that although the document “refer[red] to this proceeding as a `mediation,'” plaintiffs “believe[d] that it is properly an arbitration proceeding for which you will be asked to render an award.” The Association’s counsel never responded or questioned plaintiffs’ assertion as to the nature of the retired judge’s undertaking.
After the proceedings concluded, the retired judge rendered an arbitration award, which directed that the Association hire a contractor to make certain repairs and advance the funds for the work subject to reimbursement from numerous other affected lot owners who were not parties to any of the prior proceedings. In confirming the award, the motion judge concluded that although at times the parties’ use of the words “arbitration” and “mediation” in the record had been inconsistent, there was no question but that the parties engaged in binding arbitration before the retired judge. The Association appealed, contending that the parties did not arbitrate but instead merely mediated their disputes.
The Appellate Division rejected the Association’s argument. “With the exception of the retired judge’s mistake in having the parties execute a document memorializing the terms of a ‘civil mediation,’ there is no doubt that the parties agreed to and in fact participated in binding arbitration,” the appeals court held. In reaching its decision, the panel highlighted that there was “no evidence in the record on appeal to suggest that the Association ever asserted that the parties were merely mediating and were not arbitrating their disputes.”
Given that many business contracts call for either mediation or arbitration, or both at different times, often sequentially, it is important for businesses to understand how they differ. Since the terms can sometimes be used interchangeably, it is also imperative to verify that the dispute mechanism you enter matches the one called for in the agreement.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Joel Kreizman, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
