Document 1 of 1
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-222. Confirmation of award.
(1) After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award, the party may make a motion to the court for an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to section 13-22-220 or 13-22-224 or is vacated pursuant to section 13-22-223.
Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1728, § 1, effective August 4. L. 2005: (2) repealed, p. 764, § 20, effective June 1.
Editor's note: This section was contained in a part that was repealed and reenacted in 2004.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 13-22-213 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.
Annotator's note. Since § 13-22-222 is similar to § 13-22-213 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.
Purpose of article is to provide ground rules and procedures for enforcement of awards through the courts, but not to supersede any agreement entered into by the parties. Water Works Employees Local 1045 v. Bd. of Water Works, 44 Colo. App. 178, 615 P.2d 52 (1980).
Court's role is limited. The role of the court is considering an arbitrator's award is strictly limited. Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982).
The issues before the court in a confirmation proceeding are limited by this article. Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Cabs, Inc., 751 P.2d 61 (Colo. 1988); Container Tech. v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989); South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992); Kutch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 960 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1998).
The trial court erred in considering defendant's substantive defense concerning the constitutionality of the statute because the only defenses permitted to a request for confirmation of an arbitration award are whether grounds exist to vacate, modify, or correct such award and such defenses must be made within specified time limits. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Cabs, Inc., 751 P.2d 61 (Colo. 1988).
In the absence of appropriate grounds to modify, vacate, or correct an award, a trial court is required to affirm the award without review of the merits. McNaughton & Rodgers v. Besser, 932 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1996); Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. App. 2004).
Trial court correctly denied plaintiff's motion to confirm the award where defendant had filed an application to modify or correct the award with the arbitrator. Applehans v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 68 P.3d 594 (Colo. App. 2003).
Failure to take oath does not invalidate proceedings. Failure of the arbitrators to take an oath does not invalidate proceedings which comply with the requirement of both the uniform act and the arbitration agreement. In re Salter v. Farner, 653 P.2d 413 (Colo. App. 1982).
Arbitrator held deprived of binding power by contract. Where under the contract at issue, binding arbitration had been expressly excluded by the specific provision for advisory arbitration, arbitrator was deprived of any power to bind either party. Water Works Employees Local 1045 v. Bd. of Water Works, 44 Colo. App. 178, 615 P.2d 52 (1980).
Uniform Arbitration Act authorizes party to arbitration agreement to apply to district court for order confirming arbitration award after award has been entered. Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).
When a party attacks the validity of an arbitration award, he bears the burden of sustaining the attack. Container Tech. v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989).
The party challenging the validity of an arbitration award bears a heavy burden of establishing sufficient evidence of partiality. McNaughton & Rodgers v. Besser, 932 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1996).
Arbitrators may not be deposed for the purpose of inquiring into their thought processes. Container Tech. v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989).