what are the adavtages and disadvantages of binding arbitration in leiu of a divorce trial?
460055
The big advantage is that you get to avoid a trial.  Trials are costly and stressful.\n\nThe disadvantage is that you agree to go with whatever the arbitrator decides.  If you don't like the result, that's tough...a bitter pill to swallow in a divorce.
248653
I found this information on a web site.  It doesn't specify 5 elements, but it does specify 'necessary' elements for a binding contract.  However, you should always have a lawyer read over any contract to ensure that it is actually binding and proper before anyone signs and agrees to it.\n\n"Not every agreement between parties is binding in a court of law.  In order to be enforceable, contracts require the following elements:\n\n    * Mutual Assent – this means that the parties involved have a shared understanding as to what the contract covers.  For example, in a contract involving a “model,” if one party thinks the contract is for a model car and the other thinks it’s for a supermodel, there is no mutual consent and the contract probably will not be enforceable.\n    * Offer and Acceptance – One party must make an offer, or a communication of the intent to be bound by a contract.  The other party must accept, or assent to the terms offered.  See also alternatives to acceptance.\n    * Consideration – the mutual exchange of something of value.  Note that even though there may be no mutual consideration, there are rare cases where a mere one-sided promise can be enforced.  See detrimental reliance."\n\nThere's more on the web page... the above is just an excerpt.
566026
In my experience, the overall package is what decides a verdict in this case. Traditionally, it is said that unless there are clear reasons, the courts will side with the mother, but in this - as in any case! - it depends on what you bring forward as proof. I'm tempted to say that unless there are other facts at play (most notably, poor treatment of the children), the individual effect will be limited. Keep in mind that sometimes, the children get a vote themselves (especially if they are older: 10 or so). Good luck!
489388
The notion that compulsory arbitration completely abridges all appeal rights on any basis is layperson misunderstanding -- it does not.\n\nCompulsory arbitiration means that the parties must substitute a more informal hearing process for the traditional due process of a judicial trial. However, the arbitrator must still permit the parties a meaningful opportunity to appear and present their positions and the arbitrator must make a neutral decision based upon the evidence appearing on the record.\n\nThe objective of compulsory arbitration is to reduce the cost of litigating a dispute -- not to prevent all judicial review.\n\nA court may review a compulsory arbitration award on the basis of mistake of fact, mistake of law, application of law, and abuse of discretion. A court may not substitute its decision for the opinion of the arbitrator, but it may set aside the arbitration award and require the arbitrator to reconsider the matter in view of the facts on the record, and any opinion of the court as to the harmful error made during arbitration.\n\nThe court may also require that the arbitrator more clearly explain its award so that the court can consider the decision based on the facts set forth on the record.\n\nThe above rules generally prevail with regard to a judicially mandated compulsory arbitration.\n\nWhere parties contractually agree to a private arbitration, under the Federal Arbitration Act (Title 9 U.S.C. 1-16 et. seq.), a different standard applies.\n\n"The Federal Arbitration Act allows a federal court to correct a technical error, to strike all or a portion of an award pertaining to an issue not at all subject to arbitration, and to vacate an award that evidences affirmative misconduct in the arbitral process or the final result or that is completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard for the law. These grounds afford an extremely limited review authority, a limitation that is designed to preserve due process but not to permit unnecessary public intrusion into private arbitration procedures." Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., 341 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 08/29/2003) \n\nWith regard to the scope of judicial review, "...arbitrators 'exceed their powers' in this regard not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the award is 'completely irrational;' French, 784 F.2d at 906, or exhibits a 'manifest disregard of law,' Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 943 F.2d 1056, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1991)." Ibid.\n\nThus, courts are only authorized by Congress to undertake a more narrow review of arbitration awards, they are nevertheless still empowered to accord the litigants with a reasoned measure of due process.
256747
http://www.medlawplus.com/legalforms/instruct/sample-ltintent.pdf\n\nLook at the form on the above site and see if that may be what you need.  Good luck.
1141735
Contact the American Judges Association and ask them directly:\n\nhttp://aja.ncsc.dni.us/
357922
The very "first" thing you will need in court or arbitration or where ever you go with this is ............\n"What Does The Agreement Between The Two Of You Say"?\n\nGet out the “Signed” Tenant/Landlord Agreement (you do have one don’t you?), read it and then you will probably know with a reasonable amount of certainty what a judge would say if it goes to court. \n\nMy advice is usually, take the money and run or pay attorneys and lose even more than you already have.
640330
Try this:\n\nhttp://www.onlinedivorcepapers.com/divorce.html
1084733
Personally (not professionally) I think it's a great idea, as a legal alternative to lawsuits.\n\nIf two people really want to get together and solve their dispute between them, that should be their choice. Think of it as evolution in action. The loser would not likely make the same mistakes again.\n\nOf course, if we do that, it needs to work better than the current laws allowing arbitration. They are so off-balance that effectively a rich company can prevent a poor person from ever having a chance to be heard, and courts favor arbitration above justice because of the huge backlog of cases.\n\nSo, sure, allow it as an option, but only where both parties agree -- both at the time of the contract AND when the dispute occurs and needs to be resolved. And no lawyers (or other proxies).
19927
You need to let your lawyer know about this.  Good Luck in your battle.
984580
Yes, you can take legal action for all of the above cases, but whether it is worth the time and effort rest in your hands. Btw, the media cannot release information relevant to a current trial or a case waiting for trial if the information released contains confidential evidences or information, such as the place of residence or name of witnesses who does not wish to be revealed.
522278
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague01.htm
1016177
I filed for divorce.  My attorney told me that it would make a better case in my favor (as a female) if I did so since my Ex was dragging his feet.  It did work out for me.  The judge granted me  sole custody of our child ( we were going for joint custody) and my ex was told to pay my attorney fees.
731562
Try:\n\nNational Conflict Resolution Center\nhttp://www.ncrconline.com/\n\nAssociation for Conflict Resolution\nhttp://www.acrnet.org/\n\nModel Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation\nhttp://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/modelstandards.pdf
794479
You can copywrite it. Or you can go to a laywers office and ask them for any advice on what you can do. Or you can do the agreement you talked about that reads that they WONT use it an any manner other then business between you and them. I would definately talk to a laywer and see what your opinions are..
450871
It means the plaintiff won't show up, but they usually can't arbitrarily waive their appearance. You or your attorney if you have one would have to consent. If the plaintiff's attorney will be there, it really doesn't help you at all. It means you won't have anyone to cross-examine. I'd recommend asking for summary judgment in your favor. End of story.
508659
Ultimately, if you go through ALL the possible stages of litigation the case can be potentially decided by the supreme Court.\nIn most cases however the trial court will make the determination.\n\nAlso, sometimes contracts have so called "arbitration clauses"\nSaying that if any conflicts arise out of this contract the parties will resolve it though binding arbitration. In this case the the appointed arbiter will decide the meaning of terms.