01-1971 In Re the Marriage of: Cashman v. Huff

Listen to this article

Marina Mamalakis Huff appeals from the circuit court order affirming an arbitrator’s determination that it was in the best interest of Bridget, the daughter of Huff and Brendan H. Cashman, to increase her placement with Cashman from eight to nine nights per month during the school year. Although Huff does not contend that the increase in placement was contrary to Bridget’s best interest, she argues that the assistant family court commissioner who ordered the parties to participate in arbitration lacked the authority to do so, under Wis. Stat. sec. 788.03 (1999-2000). Huff also argues that the arbitrator’s decision exceeded the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Finally, Huff contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that she was estopped from challenging the arbitration.

We conclude that Huff, by virtue of her partial participation in the arbitration process, was estopped from challenging the arbitration.

Accordingly, we affirm.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Guolee, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Beth E. Hanan, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Diane S. Diel, Hales Corners