Document 1 of 1

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-220. Change of award by arbitrator.

13-22-220. Change of award by arbitrator.

Statute text

(1) On motion to an arbitrator by a party to an arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator may modify or correct an award:

(a) Upon a ground stated in section 13-22-224 (1) (a) or (1) (c);

(b) If the arbitrator has not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitration proceeding; or

(c) To clarify the award.

(2) A motion made under subsection (1) of this section shall be made and notice shall be given to all parties within twenty days after the movant receives notice of the award.

(3) A party to the arbitration proceeding shall give notice of any objection to the motion within ten days after receipt of the notice.

(4) If a motion to the court is pending under section 13-22-222, 13-22-223, or 13-22-224, the court may submit the claim to the arbitrator to consider whether to modify or correct the award:

(a) Upon a ground stated in section 13-22-224 (1) (a) or (1) (c);

(b) If the arbitrator has not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitration proceeding; or

(c) To clarify the award.

(5) An award modified or corrected pursuant to this section is subject to the provisions of sections 13-22-219 (1), 13-22-222, 13-22-223, and 13-22-224.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1727, 1, effective August 4.

Annotations

Editor's note: This section was contained in a part that was repealed and reenacted in 2004. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 2004, are similar to those contained in 13-22-211 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since 13-22-220 is similar to 13-22-211 as it existed prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment of this part 2, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

An application for modification of award pursuant to this section tolls the time limits in 13-22-214 and 13-22-215 for seeking review by the court. Swan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 8 P.3d 546 (Colo. App. 2000).

Amendment or modification of the award by the arbitrator is permitted only under the narrow circumstances listed in this section. Applehans v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 68 P.3d 594 (Colo. App. 2003).

"Clarify", in subsection (1)(a), does not connote a reassessment or redetermination, but rather involves making something clear or understandable. This does not mean that an arbitrator may reexamine the merits under the auspices of clarification -- merely that an arbitrator's mistake, ambiguity, or general lack of clarity may require elucidation for the parties and reviewing courts to make sense of an arbitration award. Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Group Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005).

According to former 13-22-211, an arbitrator may "modify or correct the award . . . for the purpose of clarifying the award". This unambiguous phrase means that a confusing award may be clarified as required for better understanding. Nowhere does the statute impose an additional requirement that the confusion be evident or apparent strictly on the face of the award. Had the general assembly intended to limit clarification to patently ambiguous awards, it would have said so. Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Group Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005) (decided under law in effect prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment).

Where an award is confusing because of an error, ambiguity, or general lack of clarity, an arbitrator may modify it to make it clearer and thereby effectuate the arbitrator's intent. The statute does not require that the confusion be evident on the face of the award or patently ambiguous, but an arbitrator may not redetermine the merits when clarifying an award. Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Group Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005).

Failure to object to an arbitrator's authority to issue a clarification or explanation of an award precludes raising an objection to the same on appeal. Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. App. 2004) (decided under law in effect prior to 2004 repeal and reenactment).

If an arbitrator's rulings are ambiguous, the court should attempt to resolve the ambiguity from the record whenever possible. If that is not possible, however, the matter must be remanded to the arbitrator for issuance of a modified arbitration award that clarifies the ambiguity. The arbitrator may conduct such further proceedings as he or she deems necessary. Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. App. 2004) (decided under law in effect prior to 2004 repeal and reenactment).

Arbitrator acted within his or her statutory authority by correcting an award that was initially miscalculated, thus clarifying the initial award's ruling on the merits of the case. Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Group Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005).

Applied in Red Carpet Armory Realty Co. v. Golden W. Realty, 644 P.2d 93 (Colo. App. 1982).


2006 by The Committee on Legal Services for the State of Colorado and Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement.