All appeals shall be de novo proceedings at which members of the deciding board or the single arbitrator are barred as witnesses.
Exceptions to the decision of the board or single arbitrator based on either misconduct or corruption of the board or single arbitrator may also be filed by any party within thirty days after the filing of the report, and, if sustained, the report shall be vacated.
Ohio. R. Superi. Ct. 15
Commentary (July 1, 1997)
The rule establishes guidelines for arbitration procedures. Adoption of a plan for the arbitration of cases is within the discretion of the court. Arbitration has been proven to be an effective method of case disposition.
Two changes are made from the former rule. The rule now permits the appointment of a single arbitrator or a panel of three arbitrators. This change was recommended by the Supreme Court Committee on Dispute Resolution. The amendment brings the rule into conformance with practice in several courts and provides a more cost effective route for litigants who seek arbitration services. Further, the use of a single, trusted, respected neutral should eliminate some advocacy that currently takes place when the three arbitrators engage in the decision-making aspect of the process. Also, as a cost savings measure, the rule provides for the direct payment of fees to the arbitrator or arbitrators.
Commentary (November 30, 1992 Amendment to C.P. Sup. R. 15)
Rule 15 authorizes the general division of a court of common pleas to permit mandatory arbitration, by local rule, in civil cases. The Supreme Court Committee on Dispute Resolution has reviewed this rule in the context of cases in the juvenile and domestic relations divisions of the common pleas courts. In these divisions, the Committee believes that the use of arbitration in appropriate cases would be of benefit to both the parties and the court. The Committee believes that the primary use of arbitration in juvenile and domestic relations cases would occur in cases involving the valuation of real and personal property.
By way of example, the appraisal of real and personal property involved in a divorce proceeding generally requires expert evaluation of the worth. However, in cases where there is a significant dispute or difference of opinion between the experts regarding the worth of the property, the Committee believes that the parties could benefit by having the option to request arbitration of the issue. A court could reserve ruling on issues of spousal support, child support, or custody until the valuation of personal and real property has been arbitrated. This process would free the court to direct its attention to other cases.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends the adoption of division (B). This division would permit the parties, with leave of court, to select an arbitrator for a case or an issue. The parties would select an arbitrator and propose this arbitrator to the court. Under the rule, the judge may, but is not required to, grant the parties leave to have the case or issue arbitrated. This permissive rule will allow the judge to intervene when he or she feels that the selection of the arbitrator by the parties is not appropriate under the specific circumstances of a given case. However, the Committee also stresses its strong belief in the fundamental principle that parties should be permitted to freely contract between themselves, unless strong public policy reasons intervene.
Division (B) also provides that the arbitrator need not be an attorney. In some cases, an expert from outside the area of the law may have the expertise necessary to provide a fair and just decision to the parties. The remaining provisions of division (B) mirror the requirements for arbitration in the general division of the court.