Document 1 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT

PART 2
UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT

Annotations

Editor's note: This part 2 was originally enacted in 1975. The substantive provisions were repealed and reenacted in 2004, causing some addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For prior amendments, consult the red book table distributed with the session laws; the 1997 through 2003 Colorado Revised Statutes; and the 1987 replacement volume, the original volume of C.R.S. 1973, and annual supplements to these volumes.

Annotations

Cross references: For the employment of the procedures in this part 2 to disputes arising under written agreements between employers and employees, see ァ 8-1-123.

Annotations

Law reviews: For article, "Enforcement of Arbitration Awards in Colorado", see 14 Colo. Law. 535 (1985); for article, "New Avenues for the Domestic Relations Practitioner", see 14 Colo. Law. 998 (1985); for article, "Avoiding Arbitration in Complex Construction Litigation", see 15 Colo. Law. 1808 (1986); for a discussion of Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with arbitration, see 66 Den. U.L. Rev. 675 (1989); for numerous articles dealing with alternative dispute resolution (ADR), see 18 Colo. Law. 828-928 (1989); for articles "The Power of Arbitrators and Courts to Order Discovery in Arbitration" parts I and II, see 25 Colo. Law. 55 (February 1996) and 25 Colo. Law. 35 (March 1996); for article, "Alternative Dispute Resolution in Colorado", see 28 Colo. Law. 67 (September 1999); for article, "Colorado's Revised Uniform Arbitration Act", see 33 Colo. Law. 11 (September 2004); for article, "A Three-Year Survey of Colorado Appellate Decisions on Arbitration Part I", see 34 Colo. Law. 41 (February 2005); for article, "A Three-Year Survey of Colorado Appellate Decisions on Arbitration Part II", see 34 Colo. Law. 47 (March 2005); for article, "Arbitrator and Mediator Disclosure Obligations in Colorado", see 34 Colo. Law. 53 (September 2005).


ゥ 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.

Document 2 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-201. Definitions.

13-22-201. Definitions.

Statute text

As used in this part 2, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Arbitration organization" means an association, agency, board, commission, or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors, or administers an arbitration proceeding or is involved in the appointment of an arbitrator.

(2) "Arbitrator" means an individual appointed to render an award, alone or with others, in a controversy that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.

(3) "Court" means a court of competent jurisdiction in this state.

(4) "Knowledge" means actual knowledge.

(5) "Person" means an individual; corporation; business trust; estate; trust; partnership; limited liability company; association; joint venture; government; governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality; public corporation; or any other legal or commercial entity.

(6) "Record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1718, ァ 1, effective August 4.


ゥ 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.

Document 3 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-202. Notice.

13-22-202. Notice.

Statute text

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this part 2, a person gives notice to another person by taking action that is reasonably necessary to inform the other person in ordinary course, whether or not the other person acquires knowledge of the notice.

(2) A person has notice if the person has knowledge of the notice or has received notice.

(3) A person receives notice when it comes to the person's attention or the notice is delivered at the person's place of residence or place of business, or at another location held out by the person as a place of delivery of such communications.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1719, ァ 1, effective August 4.


ゥ 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.

Document 4 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-203. Applicability.

13-22-203. Applicability.

Statute text

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, this part 2 shall govern an agreement to arbitrate made on or after August 4, 2004.

(2) This part 2 shall govern an agreement to arbitrate made before August 4, 2004, if all parties to the agreement or to the arbitration proceeding so agree in a record.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1719, ァ 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 13-22-222 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.


ゥ 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.

Document 5 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-204. Effect of agreement to arbitrate - nonwaivable provisions.

13-22-204. Effect of agreement to arbitrate - nonwaivable provisions.

Statute text

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may waive, or, the parties may vary the effect of, the requirements of this part 2 to the extent permitted by law.

(2) Before a controversy arises that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate, a party to the agreement may not:

(a) Waive or agree to vary the effect of the requirements of section 13-22-205 (1), 13-22-206 (1), 13-22-208, 13-22-217 (1) or (2), 13-22-226, or 13-22-228;

(b) Agree to unreasonably restrict the right under section 13-22-209 to notice of the initiation of an arbitration proceeding;

(c) Agree to unreasonably restrict the right under section 13-22-212 to disclosure of any facts by a neutral arbitrator; or

(d) Waive the right under section 13-22-216 of a party to an agreement to arbitrate to be represented by a lawyer at any proceeding or hearing under this part 2, but an employer and a labor organization may waive the right to representation by a lawyer in a labor arbitration.

(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), a party to an agreement to arbitrate or arbitration proceeding may not waive, or the parties may not vary the effect of, the requirements of this section or section 13-22-203 (1), 13-22-207, 13-22-214, 13-22-218, 13-22-220 (4) or (5), 13-22-222, 13-22-223, 13-22-224, 13-22-225 (1) or (2), or 13-22-229.

(b) If the parties to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding are a government, governmental subdivision, governmental agency, governmental instrumentality, public corporation, or any commercial entity, the parties may waive the requirements of section 13-22-223 except if the award was procured by corruption or fraud.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1719, ァ 1, effective August 4.


ゥ 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.

Document 6 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-205. Application for judicial relief.

13-22-205. Application for judicial relief.

Statute text

(1) Except as otherwise provided in section 13-22-228, an application for judicial relief under this part 2 must be made by motion to the court and heard in the manner provided by law or court rule for making and hearing motions.

(2) Unless a civil action involving the agreement to arbitrate is pending, notice of an initial motion to the court under this part 2 must be served in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons in a civil action. Otherwise, notice of the motion must be given in the manner provided by law or court rule for serving motions in pending cases.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1720, ァ 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 13-22-218 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.


ゥ 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.

Document 7 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-206. Validity of agreement to arbitrate.

13-22-206. Validity of agreement to arbitrate.

Statute text

(1) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.

(2) The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.

(3) An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.

(4) If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1720, ァ 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 13-22-203 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-206 is similar to ァ 13-22-203 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.

Binding grievance arbitration of public employment agreement disputes. Binding grievance arbitration of disputes arising under the terms of a public employment collective bargaining agreement is not per se unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative authority. City & County of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo. 1983).

Parties may expand an original contract for arbitration by agreeing to submit other matters of dispute to arbitration. Cabus v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1982).

Once a controversy is submitted, it remains before the arbitrator until an award is rendered unless the parties mutually agree to withdraw it. Cabus v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1982).

That an issue was voluntarily submitted or submitted by an agreement expanding the original scope of the arbitrator's jurisdiction does not alter the fact that, once agreed upon, it becomes part of a binding contract to arbitrate. Cabus v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1982).

Parties' agreement for binding Rabbinical arbitration in a legal separation proceeding that was later dismissed remained valid and applicable to the subsequent dissolution of marriage proceeding between the same parties where the agreement stated that the parties would submit any future issues that might arise relating to the marriage to the "Beth Din" and where the agreement contained no qualifying or limiting language indicating that the parties intended to link the agreement to any particular proceeding. In re Popack, 998 P.2d 464 (Colo. App. 2000).

Arbitration of claim that underlying contract induced by fraud. Where a party does not contest the validity of the arbitration clause itself, the statutory exception contained in this section does not preclude arbitration of the claim that underlying contract was induced by fraud. Nat'l Camera, Inc. v. Love, 644 P.2d 94 (Colo. App. 1982).

The Uniform Arbitration Act cannot breathe life into an arbitration agreement that the Wage Claim Act deems void. The compensation provisions of an employment contract of a Colorado employee that mandated arbitration of disputes concerning payment of his commission was void as it waived his substantive and procedural rights under the Wage Claim Act. Lambdin v. District Ct. of Arapahoe County, 903 P.2d 1126 (Colo. 1995).

For a discussion of whether certain claims were within the scope of an arbitration clause in an employment agreement, see Austin v. U S West, Inc., 926 P.2d 181 (Colo. App. 1996).

Applied in Cabs, Inc. v. Delivery Drivers Local 435, 39 Colo. App. 241, 566 P.2d 1078 (1977).


ゥ 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.

Document 8 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-207. Motion to compel or stay arbitration.

13-22-207. Motion to compel or stay arbitration.

Statute text

(1) On the motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person's refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement:

(a) If the refusing party does not appear or does not oppose the motion, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate; and

(b) If the refusing party opposes the motion, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

(2) On the motion of a person alleging that an arbitration proceeding has been initiated or threatened but that there is not an agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue. If the court finds that there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, it shall order the parties to arbitrate.

(3) If the court finds that there is no enforceable agreement, it may not invoke the provisions of subsection (1) or (2) of this section to order the parties to arbitrate.

(4) The court may not refuse to order arbitration because the claim subject to arbitration lacks merit or because one or more grounds for the claim have not been established.

(5) If a proceeding involving a claim referable to arbitration under an alleged agreement to arbitrate is pending in court, a motion made under this section shall be filed with that court. Otherwise, a motion made under this section may be filed in any court pursuant to section 13-22-227.

(6) If a party files a motion with the court to order arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim alleged to be subject to the arbitration until the ordering court renders a final decision under this section.

(7) If the court orders arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the arbitration. If a claim subject to the arbitration is severable, the court may limit the stay to that claim.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1720, ァ 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 13-22-204 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-207 is similar to ァ 13-22-204 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.

When arbitration proceedings stayed. A court is empowered to stay arbitration proceedings upon a showing that there is no agreement to arbitrate; and where it is apparent from the language of the contract that the issue sought to be arbitrated lies clearly beyond the scope of the arbitration clause, a court cannot order arbitration. Cabs, Inc. v. Delivery Drivers Local 435, 39 Colo. App. 241, 566 P.2d 1078 (1977).

Scope of arbitration to be determined by arbitrator. Where there is a reasonable basis for construing the agreement in support of arbitrability, the legislative policy underlying the article requires that the scope of the arbitration be determined by the arbitrator. Cabs, Inc. v. Delivery Drivers Local 435, 39 Colo. App. 241, 566 P.2d 1078 (1977).

Order compelling arbitration not appealable. An order compelling parties to arbitrate is not a final appealable order. Frontier Materials, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 663 P.2d 1065 (Colo. App. 1983).

Uniform Arbitration Act authorizes party to arbitration agreement to apply to district court for order compelling arbitration. Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).

Proper procedure to stay action pending arbitration. A stay of the proceeding preserves plaintiff's right to foreclose on its mechanic's lien if it prevails in arbitration. Mountain Plains Constructors v. Torrez, 785 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1990).

Party's unsuccessful attempt to stay the arbitration of a contract dispute does not mean that the party is estopped from obtaining clarification of issues which may be arbitrated. Associated Natural Gas v. Nordic Petro., 807 P.2d 1195 (Colo. App. 1990).

A trial court has limited power to preserve the status quo even though there is a statutory requirement that a pending civil action be stayed pending an arbitrator's decision. Hughley v. Rocky Mountain HMO, Inc., 927 P.2d 1325 (Colo. 1996).

Appealable order. A denial of a motion to compel arbitration is an appealable order. However, an immediate appeal is permissive and not mandatory. Therefore, an order denying a motion to compel arbitration may also be appealed after final judgment. Mountain Plains Constructors v. Torrez, 785 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1990).

Arbitration is a favored means of dispute resolution and any doubts about the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Gergel v. High View Homes, LLC, 996 P.2d 233 (Colo. App. 1999).

A court may refuse to compel arbitration upon application by a party showing an agreement to arbitrate, only if there is no agreement to arbitrate or if the issue sought to be arbitrated is clearly beyond the scope of the arbitration provision. Shorey v. Jefferson County Sch. District No. R-1, 807 P.2d 1181 (Colo. App. 1990); Eychner v. Van Vleet, 870 P.2d 486 (Colo. App. 1993); Gergel v. High View Homes, LLC, 996 P.2d 233 (Colo. App. 1999); Eagle Ridge Condo. Ass'n v. Metro. Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915 (Colo. App. 2004).

In resolving a motion to compel arbitration the court must inquire whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties to the action, and whether the issues being disputed are within the scope of that agreement. Eychner v. Van Vleet, 870 P.2d 486 (Colo. App. 1993).

In considering a motion to compel arbitration, the court must first determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. Eagle Ridge Condo. Ass'n v. Metro. Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915 (Colo. App. 2004).

Intertwining doctrine does not prevent a court from ordering arbitration where all claims to be decided fall within the scope of an arbitration clause. Gergel v. High View Homes, LLC, 996 P.2d 233 (Colo. App. 1999); Eagle Ridge Condo. Ass'n v. Metro. Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915 (Colo. App. 2004).

When facts and issues are intertwined, if some issues require arbitration and others do not, consideration of the interests of judicial economy, time, and expense leads to the conclusion that all the issues should be resolved by litigation. Atmel Corp. v. Vitesse Semiconductor Corp., 30 P.3d 789 (Colo. App. 2001); Eagle Ridge Condo. Ass'n v. Metro. Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915 (Colo. App. 2004).

Determining whether the intertwining doctrine applies requires determinations as to whether any claims fall under the arbitration provision at issue and whether any nonarbitrable claims are so inextricably intertwined with the arbitrable claims as to prevent severance. Eagle Ridge Condo. Ass'n v. Metro. Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915 (Colo. App. 2004).

The right to compel arbitration is derived from contract. Unless the intent of the parties to the contract is to bring a nonparty within the scope of an arbitration agreement, one who is not a party to the contract lacks standing to compel, or to be subject to, arbitration. Eychner v. Van Vleet, 870 P.2d 486 (Colo. App. 1993); Parker v. Center for Creative Leadership, 15 P.3d 297 (Colo. App. 2000); Eagle Ridge Condo. Ass'n v. Metro. Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915 (Colo. App. 2004).

In determining whether the parties agreed or intended to submit an issue to arbitration, the ordinary principles of contract interpretation apply. Eagle Ridge Condo. Ass'n v. Metro. Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915 (Colo. App. 2004).

In determining the scope of an arbitration clause, the court must strive to ascertain and give effect to the mutual intent of the parties and must consider the subject matter and purposes to be accomplished by the agreement. Eychner v. Van Vleet, 780 P.2d 486 (Colo. App. 1993); Hughley v. Rocky Mountain HMO, Inc., 910 P.2d 30 (Colo. App. 1995), rev'd on other grounds, 927 P.2d 1325 (Colo. 1996); Parker v. Center for Creative Leadership, 15 P.3d 297 (Colo. App. 2000).

If a party asserts that the entire contract is illegal, the court must determine this threshold issue first. R.P.T. v. Innovative Communications, 917 P.2d 340 (Colo. App. 1996).

Applied in Paul Mullins Constr. Co. v. Alspaugh, 628 P.2d 113 (Colo. App. 1980); Weedin v. United States, 509 F. Supp. 1052 (D. Colo. 1981); Sandefer v. District Court, 635 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1981); City & County of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo. 1983); Lawrence St. Part. v. Lawrence St. Vent., 786 P.2d 508 (Colo. App. 1989); Shorey v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. R-1, 807 P.2d 1181 (Colo. App. 1990).


ゥ 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.

Document 9 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-208. Provisional remedies.

13-22-208. Provisional remedies.

Statute text

(1) Before an arbitrator is appointed and is authorized and able to act, the court, upon motion of a party to an arbitration proceeding and for good cause shown, may enter an order for provisional remedies to protect the effectiveness of the arbitration proceeding to the same extent and under the same conditions as if the controversy were the subject of a civil action.

(2) After an arbitrator is appointed and is authorized and able to act:

(a) The arbitrator may issue such orders for provisional remedies, including interim awards, as the arbitrator finds necessary to protect the effectiveness of the arbitration proceeding and to promote the fair and expeditious resolution of the controversy, to the same extent and under the same conditions as if the controversy were the subject of a civil action; and

(b) A party to an arbitration proceeding may request the court to issue an order for a provisional remedy only if the matter is urgent and the arbitrator is not able to act timely or the arbitrator cannot provide an adequate remedy.

(3) A party does not waive a right of arbitration by making a motion under subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1721, ァ 1, effective August 4.


ゥ 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.

Document 10 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-209. Initiation of arbitration.

13-22-209. Initiation of arbitration.

Statute text

(1) A person may initiate an arbitration proceeding by giving notice in a record to the other parties to the agreement to arbitrate in the agreed manner between the parties or, in the absence of an agreement, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested and obtained, or by service as authorized by law for the commencement of a civil action. The notice shall describe the nature of the controversy and the remedy sought.

(2) Unless a person objects to the lack of notice or the insufficiency of notice under section 13-22-215 (3) not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing, a person who appears at the arbitration hearing waives any objection to the lack of notice or insufficiency of notice.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1722, ァ 1, effective August 4.


ゥ 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.

Document 11 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-210. Consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings.

13-22-210. Consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings.

Statute text

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, upon the motion of a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding, the court may order consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings as to all or some of the claims if all parties in the arbitration proceedings consent and:

(a) There are separate agreements to arbitrate or separate arbitration proceedings between or among the same persons or one of the persons is a party to a separate agreement to arbitrate or a separate arbitration proceeding with a third person;

(b) The claims subject to the agreements to arbitrate arise in substantial part from the same transaction or series of related transactions;

(c) The existence of a common issue of law or fact creates the possibility of conflicting decisions in the separate arbitration proceedings; and

(d) Prejudice resulting from a failure to consolidate is not outweighed by the risk of undue delay or prejudice to the rights of or hardship to parties opposing consolidation.

(2) The court may order consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings as to some claims and allow other claims to be resolved in separate arbitration proceedings.

(3) The court may not order consolidation of the claims of a party to an agreement to arbitrate if the agreement prohibits consolidation.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1722, ァ 1, effective August 4.


ゥ 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.

Document 12 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-211. Appointment of arbitrator - service as a neutral arbitrator.

13-22-211. Appointment of arbitrator - service as a neutral arbitrator.

Statute text

(1) If the parties to an agreement to arbitrate agree on a method for appointing an arbitrator, the method shall be followed unless the method fails. If the parties have not agreed on a method, or the agreed method fails, or an appointed arbitrator fails to act or is unable to act and a successor has not been appointed, the court, on the motion of a party to the arbitration proceeding, shall appoint the arbitrator. An arbitrator appointed pursuant to this subsection (1) shall have all the powers of an arbitrator designated in an agreement to arbitrate or appointed pursuant to an agreed method.

(2) An individual who has a known, direct, and material interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding or a known, existing, and substantial relationship with a party may not serve as an arbitrator if the agreement requires the arbitrator to be neutral.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1722, ァ 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 13-22-205 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.


ゥ 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.

Document 13 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-212. Disclosure by arbitrator.

13-22-212. Disclosure by arbitrator.

Statute text

(1) Before accepting an appointment, an individual who is requested to serve as an arbitrator, after making a reasonable inquiry, shall disclose to all parties to the agreement to arbitrate and arbitration proceeding and to any other arbitrators any known facts that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the arbitrator in the arbitration proceeding, including:

(a) A financial or personal interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding; and

(b) A current or previous relationship with any of the parties to the agreement to arbitrate or the arbitration proceeding, their counsel or representatives, a witness, or another arbitrator.

(2) An arbitrator shall have a continuing obligation to disclose to all parties to the agreement to arbitrate and to the arbitration proceeding and to any other arbitrators any facts that the arbitrator learns after accepting appointment that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the arbitrator.

(3) If an arbitrator discloses a fact required to be disclosed by subsection (1) or (2) of this section and a party timely objects to the appointment or continued service of the arbitrator based upon the fact disclosed, the objection may be a ground under section 13-22-223 (1) (b) for vacating an award made by an arbitrator.

(4) If the arbitrator does not disclose a fact as required by subsection (1) or (2) of this section, upon timely objection by a party, the court may vacate an award under section 13-22-223 (1) (b).

(5) An arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator who does not disclose a known, direct, and material interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding or a known, existing, and substantial relationship with a party shall be presumed to act with evident partiality under section 13-22-223 (1) (b).

(6) If the parties to an arbitration proceeding agree to the procedures of an arbitration organization or any other procedures for challenges to arbitrators before an award is made, substantial compliance with those procedures is a condition precedent to a motion to vacate an award on that ground under section 13-22-223 (1) (b).

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1723, ァ 1, effective August 4.


ゥ 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.

Document 14 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-213. Action by majority.

13-22-213. Action by majority.

Statute text

If there is more than one arbitrator, the powers of an arbitrator shall be exercised by a majority of the arbitrators, except that all of the arbitrators shall conduct the hearing under the provisions of section 13-22-215 (3).

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1724, ァ 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 13-22-205 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.


ゥ 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.

Document 15 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-214. Immunity of arbitrator - competency to testify - attorney fees and costs.

13-22-214. Immunity of arbitrator - competency to testify - attorney fees and costs.

Statute text

(1) An arbitrator or an arbitration organization acting in the capacity of an arbitrator is immune from civil liability to the same extent as a judge of a court of this state acting in a judicial capacity.

(2) The immunity afforded by this section is in addition to, and not in lieu of, or in derogation of, immunity conferred under any other provision of law.

(3) The failure of an arbitrator to make a disclosure required by section 13-22-212 shall not cause any loss of immunity that is granted under this section.

(4) (a) In a judicial proceeding, administrative proceeding, or other similar proceeding, an arbitrator or representative of an arbitration organization shall not be competent to testify and may not be required to produce records as to any statement, conduct, decision, or ruling that occurred during the arbitration proceeding, to the same extent as a judge of a court of this state acting in a judicial capacity.

(b) This subsection (4) shall not apply:

(I) To the extent necessary to determine the claim of an arbitrator, arbitration organization, or representative of the arbitration organization against a party to the arbitration proceeding; or

(II) To a hearing on a motion to vacate an award under section 13-22-223 (1) (a) or (1) (b) if the movant makes a prima facie showing that a ground for vacating the award exists.

(5) If a person commences a civil action against an arbitrator, arbitration organization, or representative of an arbitration organization arising from the services of the arbitrator, organization, or representative, or if a person seeks to compel an arbitrator or a representative of an arbitration organization to testify or produce records in violation of subsection (4) of this section, and the court decides that the arbitrator, arbitration organization, or representative of an arbitration organization is immune from civil liability or that the arbitrator or representative of the organization is not competent to testify, the court shall award to the arbitrator, organization, or representative reasonable attorney fees and reasonable expenses of litigation.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1724, ァ 1, effective August 4.


ゥ 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.

Document 16 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-215. Arbitration process.

13-22-215. Arbitration process.

Statute text

(1) An arbitrator may conduct an arbitration in a manner that the arbitrator considers appropriate for a fair and expeditious disposition of the proceeding. The authority conferred upon the arbitrator by this part 2 shall include, but not be limited to, the power to hold conferences with the parties to the arbitration proceeding before the hearing and the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of any evidence.

(2) An arbitrator may decide a request for summary disposition of a claim or particular issue:

(a) If all interested parties agree; or

(b) Upon request of one or more parties to the arbitration proceeding if that party gives notice to all other parties to the proceeding and the other parties have a reasonable opportunity to respond.

(3) If an arbitrator orders a hearing, the arbitrator shall set a time and place and give notice of the hearing not less than five days before the hearing begins. Unless a party to the arbitration proceeding makes an objection to lack or insufficiency of notice not later than the beginning of the hearing, the party's appearance at the hearing shall waive the objection. Upon the request of a party to the arbitration proceeding and for good cause shown, or upon the arbitrator's own initiative, the arbitrator may adjourn the hearing from time to time as necessary but may not postpone the hearing to a time later than that fixed by the agreement to arbitrate for making the award unless the parties to the arbitration proceeding consent to a later date. The arbitrator may hear and decide the controversy upon the evidence produced even if a party who was duly notified of the arbitration proceeding does not appear. The court, on motion, may direct the arbitrator to conduct the hearing promptly and render a timely decision.

(4) At a hearing under subsection (3) of this section, a party to the arbitration proceeding has a right to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy, and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing.

(5) If an arbitrator ceases or is unable to act during the arbitration proceeding, a replacement arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with section 13-22-211 to continue the proceeding and to resolve the controversy.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1724, ァ 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 13-22-207 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-215 is similar to ァ 13-22-207 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.

Generally, arbitrators are not bound by either substantive or procedural rules of law, except as required under the terms of the arbitration agreement. Cabus v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1982).

No absolute right to a hearing under this section if the arbitration agreement does not require a hearing. Section 10203 (a) of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., code of arbitration procedure does not require an arbitrator to hold a hearing. Therefore, it was within the discretion of the arbitrator whether to hold a hearing. Carson v. PaineWebber, Inc., 62 P.3d 996 (Colo. App. 2002).

Taking of oath not required. The taking of an oath prior to commencing deliberations is not required by the hearing procedures set forth in this section. In re Salter v. Farner, 653 P.2d 413 (Colo. App. 1982).


ゥ 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.

Document 17 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-216. Representation by attorney.

13-22-216. Representation by attorney.

Statute text

A party to an arbitration proceeding may be represented by an attorney.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1725, ァ 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 13-22-208 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.


ゥ 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.

Document 18 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-217. Witnesses - subpoenas - depositions - discovery.

13-22-217. Witnesses - subpoenas - depositions - discovery.

Statute text

(1) An arbitrator may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a witness and for the production of records and other evidence at any hearing and may administer oaths. A subpoena issued under this section shall be served in the manner for service of subpoenas in a civil action and, upon motion to the court by a party to the arbitration proceeding or by the arbitrator, enforced in the manner for enforcement of subpoenas in a civil action.

(2) In order to make the proceedings fair, expeditious, and cost effective, upon the request of a party or a witness in an arbitration proceeding, an arbitrator may permit a deposition of any witness to be taken for use as evidence at the hearing, including a witness who cannot be subpoenaed for a hearing or who is unable to attend a hearing. The arbitrator shall determine the conditions under which the deposition is taken.

(3) An arbitrator may permit such discovery as the arbitrator decides is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the needs of the parties to the arbitration proceeding and other affected persons and the desirability of making the proceeding fair, expeditious, and cost effective.

(4) If an arbitrator permits discovery under subsection (3) of this section, the arbitrator may order a party to the arbitration proceeding to comply with the arbitrator's discovery-related orders, issue subpoenas for the attendance of a witness and for the production of records and other evidence at a discovery proceeding, and take action against a non-complying party to the extent a court could take such action if the controversy were the subject of a civil action; except that the arbitrator shall not have the power of contempt.

(5) An arbitrator may issue a protective order to prevent the disclosure of privileged information, confidential information, trade secrets, and other information protected from disclosure to the extent a court could if the controversy were the subject of a civil action.

(6) All provisions of law that compel a person under subpoena to testify and all fees for attending a judicial proceeding, a deposition, or a discovery proceeding as a witness shall apply to an arbitration proceeding in the same manner as if the controversy were the subject of a civil action.

(7) The court may enforce a subpoena or discovery-related order for the attendance of a witness within this state and for the production of records and other evidence issued by an arbitrator in connection with an arbitration proceeding in another state upon conditions determined by the court so as to make the arbitration proceeding fair, expeditious, and cost effective. A subpoena or discovery-related order issued by an arbitrator in another state shall be served in the manner provided by law for service of subpoenas in a civil action and, upon motion to the court by a party to the arbitration proceeding or the arbitrator, enforced in the manner provided by law for enforcement of subpoenas in a civil action.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1725, ァ 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 13-22-209 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

Cross references: For the Colorado rule of civil procedure concerning subpoenas, see rule 45; for the fees for attendance of witnesses in the district court, see ァ 13-33-102.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Am. Jur.2d. See 81 Am. Jur.2d, Witnesses, ァァ 1-3, 7, 68, 70, 75-78, 82, 103, 107, 109, 111, 114.

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-217 is similar to ァ 13-22-209 as it existed prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment of this part 2, a relevant case construing that provision has been included in the annotations to this section.

This section allows arbitrators to issue subpoenas for the production of documents and other evidence; therefore there is no merit in the argument that the arbitration clause of a health care contract is unenforceable because it does not provide for discovery. Rains v. Found. Health Sys. Life & Health, 23 P.3d 1249 (Colo. App. 2001).


ゥ 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.

Document 19 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-218. Judicial enforcement of pre-award ruling by arbitrator.

13-22-218. Judicial enforcement of pre-award ruling by arbitrator.

Statute text

If an arbitrator makes a pre-award ruling in favor of a party to the arbitration proceeding, the party may request the arbitrator to incorporate the ruling into an award under section 13-22-219. A prevailing party may make a motion to the court for an expedited order to confirm the award under section 13-22-222, in which case the court shall summarily decide the motion. The court shall issue an order to confirm the award unless the court vacates, modifies, or corrects the award under section 13-22-223 or 13-22-224.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1726, ァ 1, effective August 4.


ゥ 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.

Document 20 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-219. Award.

13-22-219. Award.

Statute text

(1) An arbitrator shall make a record of an award. The record shall be signed or otherwise authenticated by an arbitrator who concurs with the award. The arbitrator or the arbitration organization shall give notice of the award, including a copy of the award, to each party to the arbitration proceeding.

(2) An award must be made within the time specified by the agreement to arbitrate or, if not specified therein, within the time ordered by the court. The court may extend the time or the parties to the arbitration proceeding may agree in a record to extend the time. The court or the parties may do so within or after the time specified or ordered. A party shall be deemed to have waived any objection that an award was not timely made unless the party gives notice of the objection to the arbitrator before receiving notice of the award.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1727, ァ 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 13-22-210 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-219 is similar to ァ 13-22-210 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.

Arbitrator is the final judge of both fact and law. Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982).

Arbitration award is tantamount to a judgment. Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982); Container Technology v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989); McNaughton & Rodgers v. Besser, 932 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1996).

Specific findings of fact not required. An arbitration award does not need to contain specific findings of fact if there is no statute or contractual provision in the arbitration agreement which requires such findings. Ash Apts. v. Martinez, 656 P.2d 708 (Colo. App. 1982).


ゥ 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.

Document 21 of 31

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, ァ 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 ァ 13-22-220 is similar to ァ 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 ァァ 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 ァ 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).


ゥ 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.

Document 22 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-221. Remedies - fees and expenses of arbitration proceeding.

13-22-221. Remedies - fees and expenses of arbitration proceeding.

Statute text

(1) An arbitrator may award reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable expenses of arbitration if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim or by the agreement of the parties to the arbitration proceeding.

(2) An arbitrator's expenses and fees, together with other expenses, shall be paid as provided in the award.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or amend the provisions of section 13-21-102 (5).

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1728, ァ 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 13-22-212 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-221 is similar to ァ 13-22-212 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.

Where appellants have not shown section arbitrarily singles out a group of persons similarly situated for disparate treatment, provisions of section, which allow an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration but do not authorize an interlocutory appeal of an order compelling arbitration, are rationally based and do not violate equal protection. Ferla v. Infinity Dev. Assocs., LLC, 107 P.3d 1006 (Colo. App. 2004).

Trial court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on an arbitrator's request for payment of fees. Although the necessity or reasonableness of an arbitrator's fees may be subject to dispute, the parties' due process rights to litigate the scope of the services and the amounts requested are well protected by written motion practice. In re Eggert, 53 P.3d 794 (Colo. App. 2002).

Although section excludes "counsel fees," it appears to cover other costs incurred in the arbitration. Because there was no agreement to the contrary, the statute compels the parties to pay these costs as provided under the arbitrator's award. Thus, to the extent the arbitrator's award represented costs other than counsel fees, the trial court should have confirmed the award. Compton v. Lemon Ranches, Ltd., 972 P.2d 1078 (Colo. App. 1999).

This section prohibits an arbitrator from awarding attorney fees unless the parties have specifically agreed that the arbitrator shall address that issue. Therefore, the trial court did not err in awarding the defendant its attorney fees incurred in the trial court, and the trial court's order was not void for lack of jurisdiction. Camelot Investments, LLC v. LANDesign, LLC, 973 P.2d 1279 (Colo. App. 1999).


ゥ 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.

Document 23 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-222. Confirmation of award.

13-22-222. Confirmation of award.

Statute text

(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.

(2) Repealed.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1728, ァ 1, effective August 4. L. 2005: (2) repealed, p. 764, ァ 20, effective June 1.

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 13-22-213 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-222 is similar to ァ 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).


ゥ 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.

Document 24 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-223. Vacating award.

13-22-223. Vacating award.

Statute text

(1) Upon motion to the court by a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if the court finds that:

(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means;

(b) There was:

(I) Evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator;

(II) Corruption by an arbitrator; or

(III) Misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;

(c) An arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon showing of sufficient cause for postponement, refused to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise conducted the hearing contrary to section 13-22-215, so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;

(d) An arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;

(e) There was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection under section 13-22-215 (3) not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing; or

(f) The arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in section 13-22-209 so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.

(1.5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.

(2) A motion made under this section shall be filed within ninety days after the movant receives notice of the award pursuant to section 13-22-219 or within ninety days after the movant receives notice of a modified or corrected award pursuant to section 13-22-220, unless the movant alleges that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means, in which case the motion must be made within ninety days after either the ground is known or by the exercise of reasonable care should have been known by the movant.

(3) If the court vacates an award on a ground other than that set forth in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section, it may order a rehearing. If the award is vacated on a ground stated in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of this section, the rehearing shall be held before a new arbitrator. If the award is vacated on a ground stated in paragraph (c), (d), or (f) of subsection (1) of this section, the rehearing may be held before the arbitrator who made the award or the arbitrator's successor. The arbitrator must render the decision in the rehearing within the same time as that provided in section 13-22-219 (2) for an award.

(4) If the court denies a motion to vacate an award, it shall confirm the award unless a motion to modify or correct the award is pending.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1728, ァ 1, effective August 4. L. 2005: (1.5) added, p. 764, ァ 21, effective June 1.

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 13-22-214 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-223 is similar to ァ 13-22-214 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.

Generally, arbitrators are not bound by either substantive or procedural rules of law, except as required under the terms of the arbitration agreement. Cabus v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1982); Byerly v. Kirkpatrick Pettis Smith Polian, Inc., 996 P.2d 771 (Colo. App. 2000).

The arbitrators do not exceed their authority by rendering a decision that is contrary to the rules of law that would have been applied by a court. Byerly v. Kirkpatrick Pettis Smith Polian, Inc., 996 P.2d 771 (Colo. App. 2000).

An arbitrator's manifest disregard of the law is not a ground for vacating an arbitration award as exceeding the arbitrator's power under former ァ 13-22-214 (1)(a)(III) or as a nonstatutory common law ground. An arbitrator does not necessarily exceed his power when he does not properly apply the law. Coors Brewing Co. v. Cabo, 114 P.3d 60 (Colo. App. 2004) (decided under former law).

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).

Rule's inconsistency with section overridden. To the extent C.R.C.P. 109 is inconsistent with this section, it would appear to be overridden. Copper Mt., Inc. v. Project Oneco, Inc., 3 Bankr. 284 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1980).

If an arbitrator exceeds his authority by going beyond the contract terms and, in effect, enacting new binding terms and conditions of employment, the dissatisfied party may apply to the court to vacate the award. City & County of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo. 1983).

Applicable statute of limitations for breach of contract/duty of fair representation claim under the federal Railway Labor Act was the six-month period provided by the federal National Labor Relations Act and not the ninety-day period in subsection (2). Barnett v. United Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087, 105 S. Ct. 594, 83 L. Ed.2d 703 (1984).

Uniform Arbitration Act authorizes party to arbitration agreement to apply to district court for order vacating arbitration award after entry of award. Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).

Failure of a party to move to vacate an arbitration award within the prescribed time period precludes such party from using the grounds as an affirmative defense in a subsequent action by the other party to enforce the award. Elec. Workers Local 969 v. Babcock & Wilcox, 826 F.2d 962 (10th Cir. 1987).

Failure to bring a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award within the prescribed time limit prevents the defendant from raising the contractual policy limits as a defense in a confirmation proceeding held after expiration of the statutory time limit. Kutch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 960 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1998).

However, an application to arbitrator pursuant to ァ 13-22-211 to modify award tolls the 30-day time limit under this section for seeking judicial review. Swan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 8 P.3d 546 (Colo. App. 2000).

Vacating, modifying, or correcting awards by court permissible only on the basis of the statutory grounds set forth in this section or ァ 13-22-215. Foust v. Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co., 786 P.2d 450 (Colo. App. 1989); Sportsman's Quikstop I, Ltd. v. Didonato, 32 P.3d 633 (Colo. App. 2001).

An arbitrator's award is not a "final judgment" reviewable by an appellate court. Upon confirmation of the award by a district court in accordance with ァ 13-22-213, and absent a timely motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award, there is no appealable issue. South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

General assembly's authority to determine the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is exclusive. South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

Parties to an arbitration agreement cannot define and prescribe the powers of a court of law. Where a contract term purported to allow an appellate court to conduct a substantive review of the arbitration panel's award, contrary to the controlling statutes, clause was void and unenforceable. South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

Trial court erred in finding arbitrators had the authority to decide whether insureds were entitled to stack uninsured motorist benefits. Arbitration clause in policy was a limited clause and provided only for the arbitration of two stated issues. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stein, 886 P.2d 323 (Colo. App. 1994).

An unfavorable interpretation of a contract is not a basis for setting aside an arbitration award. Container Tech. v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989).

The five enumerated grounds for relief set forth in subsection (1)(a) are exclusive. Byerly v. Kirkpatrick Pettis Smith Polian, Inc., 996 P.2d 771 (Colo. App. 2000).

In order to establish that the award was "procured by" undue means, there must be a causal relation between the improper conduct and the arbitration award. Affidavits of the arbitration panel members may be properly considered on the causation issue as long as the purpose is not to establish the thought process of the panel members. Nasca v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 P.3d 346 (Colo. App. 2000).

The ordinary meaning of "undue means" suggests some type of impropriety in the arbitration process. The terms are broad enough to include a party-appointed arbitrator's non-disclosure of a substantial business relationship. Thus, if an arbitrator in a law firm with attorneys who have a substantial business relationship with an insurance carrier in the arbitration proceeding, including service as expert witnesses, has a duty to disclose the relationship to the parties in the proceeding. Nasca v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 P.3d 346 (Colo. App. 2000).

Party must demonstrate that he or she was substantially prejudiced by an arbitrator's refusal to consider evidence material to the controversy before a court can vacate an award. Carson v. PaineWebber, Inc., 62 P.3d 996 (Colo. App. 2002).

One of the statutory grounds for vacation of an award is that the arbitrator exceeded the powers granted in the arbitration agreement. It is not sufficient to argue merely that the arbitrator committed an error of law on the merits, but rather, plaintiff must establish that the arbitrator refused to apply or ignored the legal standard agreed upon by the parties for resolution of the dispute. Giraldi by and through Giraldi v. Morrell, 892 P.2d 422 (Colo. App. 1994).

Evident partiality is a fact-sensitive standard. It depends on the nature of the conflict between the arbitrator and the party, the issue being arbitrated, and the structure of the arbitration agreement. McNaughton & Rodgers v. Besser, 932 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1996).

Arbitrators have a duty to disclose any potential conflict that could constitute evident partiality, which is a relationship that would persuade a reasonable person that the arbitrator is likely to be partial to one side in the dispute. McNaughton & Rodgers v. Besser, 932 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1996).

Some facts indicating bias include pecuniary interest, familial relationship, and the existence of an adversarial or sympathetic relationship. McNaughton & Rodgers v. Besser, 932 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1996).

Evident partiality was not established in medical malpractice case by mere fact that some of arbitrator's relatives were health care professionals. Giraldi by and through Giraldi v. Morrell, 892 P.2d 422 (Colo. App. 1994).

If a party asserts that the entire contract is illegal, the court must determine this threshold issue first. R.P.T. v. Innovative Commc'ns, 917 P.2d 340 (Colo. App. 1996).

Colorado law affords an arbitrator great flexibility in fashioning appropriate remedies, including specific performance and conditional assessment of damages. R.P.T. v. Innovative Commc'ns, 917 P.2d 340 (Colo. App. 1996).

To determine if the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority within the meaning of this section, the court must determine the scope of the arbitration clause contained in the contract. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Taylor, 45 P.3d 759 (Colo. App. 2001).

When an arbitration award is secured by fraud, the court must vacate the whole award unless there is a discrete and severable part of the award that was procured by fraud. Superior Constr. Co. v. Bentley, 104 P.3d 331 (Colo. App. 2004) (decided under former ァ 13-22-214 prior to 2004 repeal and reenactment).

Applied in Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982); Red Carpet Armory Realty Co. v. Golden W. Realty, 644 P.2d 93 (Colo. App. 1982); South Conejos Sch. District RE-10 v. Martinez, 709 P.2d 594 (Colo. App. 1985).


ゥ 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.

Document 25 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-224. Modification or correction of award.

13-22-224. Modification or correction of award.

Statute text

(1) Upon motion made within ninety days after the movant receives notice of the award pursuant to section 13-22-219 or within ninety days after the movant receives notice of a modified or corrected award pursuant to section 13-22-220, the court shall modify or correct the award if:

(a) There is an evident mathematical miscalculation or an evident mistake in the description of a person, thing, or property referred to in the award;

(b) The arbitrator has made an award on a claim not submitted to the arbitrator and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the claims submitted; or

(c) The award is imperfect in a matter of form not affecting the merits of the decision on the claims submitted.

(2) If a motion made under subsection (1) of this section is granted, the court shall modify or correct and confirm the award as modified or corrected. Otherwise, unless a motion to vacate is pending, the court shall confirm the award.

(3) A motion to modify or correct an award pursuant to this section may be joined with a motion to vacate the award.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1729, ァ 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 13-22-215 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-224 is similar to ァ 13-22-215 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.

"Evident miscalculation of figures" refers only to mathematical errors committed by arbitrators which would be patently clear to a reviewing court. Court cannot use these grounds to review the merits of the award on appeal. In re Gavend, 781 P.2d 161 (Colo. App. 1989).

Such a mistake which permits a modification under subsection (1)(a) must be so gross as to evidence that the award did not actually represent the arbitrator's intent. Such a modification is only authorized if it seeks to effectuate the clearly expressed intent of the arbitrator by correcting a mathematical error without altering the arbitrator's conclusion on the merits. Foust v. Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co., 786 P.2d 450 (Colo. App. 1989).

Vacating, modifying, or correcting awards by court permissible only on the basis of the statutory grounds set forth in this section or ァ 13-22-214. Foust v. Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co., 786 P.2d 450 (Colo. App. 1989); Sportsman's Quikstop I, Ltd. v. Didonato, 32 P.3d 633 (Colo. App. 2001).

An arbitrator's award is not a "final judgment" reviewable by an appellate court. Upon confirmation of the award by a district court in accordance with ァ 13-22-213, and absent a timely motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award, there is no appealable issue. South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

General assembly's authority to determine the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is exclusive. South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

Parties to an arbitration agreement cannot define and prescribe the powers of a court of law. Where a contract term purported to allow an appellate court to conduct a substantive review of the arbitration panel's award, contrary to the controlling statutes, clause was void and unenforceable. South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

Failure to bring a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award within the prescribed time limit prevents the defendant from raising the contractual policy limits as a defense in a confirmation proceeding held after expiration of the statutory time limit. Kutch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 960 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1998).

Since defendant failed to follow prescribed time limit in motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award, he is barred from presenting the substantive defenses to plaintiff's motion. Sportsman's Quikstop I, Ltd. v. Didonato, 32 P.3d 633 (Colo. App. 2001).

However, an application to arbitrator pursuant to ァ 13-22-211 to modify award tolls the 30-day time limit under this section for seeking judicial review. Swan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 8 P.3d 546 (Colo. App. 2000).

Trial court's award of prejudgment interest upon confirmation of the arbitration award is an impermissible modification of the arbitration award where such interest was not requested during the arbitration. Duncan v. Nat'l Home Ins. Co., 36 P.3d 191 (Colo. App. 2001).

Applied in Atencio v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 619 P.2d 784 (Colo. App. 1980); Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982).


ゥ 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.

Document 26 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-225. Judgment on award - attorney fees and litigation expenses.

13-22-225. Judgment on award - attorney fees and litigation expenses.

Statute text

(1) Upon granting an order confirming, vacating without directing a rehearing, modifying, or correcting an award, the court shall enter a judgment in conformity therewith. The judgment may be recorded, docketed, and enforced as any other judgment in a civil action.

(2) A court may award the reasonable costs of the motion and subsequent judicial proceedings.

(3) On the application of a prevailing party to a contested judicial proceeding under section 13-22-222, 13-22-223, or 13-22-224, the court may add reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable expenses of litigation incurred in a judicial proceeding after the award is made to a judgment confirming, vacating without directing a rehearing, modifying, or correcting an award.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1730, ァ 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 13-22-216 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-225 is similar to ァ 13-22-216 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.

Arbitration award is tantamount to a judgment. Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982); Container Technology v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989).


ゥ 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.

Document 27 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-226. Jurisdiction.

13-22-226. Jurisdiction.

Statute text

(1) A court having jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties may enforce an agreement to arbitrate.

(2) An agreement to arbitrate providing for arbitration in this state confers jurisdiction on the court to enter judgment on an award under this part 2.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1730, ァ 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 13-22-219 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-226 is similar to ァ 13-22-219 as it existed prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment of this part 2, a relevant case construing that provision has been included in the annotations to this section.

A motion to compel arbitration is a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which cannot be resolved by the presumptive truthfulness of the complaint but which must be determined in a factual hearing. Eychner v. Van Vleet, 870 P.2d 486 (Colo. App. 1993).


ゥ 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.

Document 28 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-227. Venue.

13-22-227. Venue.

Statute text

A motion pursuant to section 13-22-205 shall be made in a court of the county in which the agreement to arbitrate specifies the arbitration hearing is to be held or, if the hearing has been held, in a court of the county in which it was held. Otherwise, a motion pursuant to section 13-22-205 may be made in the court of any county in which an adverse party resides or has a place of business or, if no adverse party has a residence or place of business in this state, in a court of any county in this state. All subsequent motions must be made in the court hearing the initial motion unless the court otherwise directs.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1730, ァ 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 13-22-220 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.


ゥ 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.

Document 29 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-228. Appeals.

13-22-228. Appeals.

Statute text

(1) An appeal may be taken from:

(a) An order denying a motion to compel arbitration;

(b) An order granting a motion to stay arbitration;

(c) An order confirming or denying confirmation of an award;

(d) An order modifying or correcting an award;

(e) An order vacating an award without directing a rehearing; or

(f) A final judgment entered pursuant to this part 2.

(2) An appeal under this section shall be taken in the same manner as an appeal of an order or judgment in a civil action.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1730, ァ 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 13-22-221 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Annotator's note. Since ァ 13-22-228 is similar to ァ 13-22-221 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.

When denial of application to compel arbitration not appealable. An appeal may not be taken from an order denying an application to compel arbitration on an employment contract entered into before July 14, 1975. Monatt v. Pioneer Astro Indus., Inc., 42 Colo. App. 265, 592 P.2d 1352 (1979).

Order compelling arbitration not appealable. An order compelling parties to arbitrate, pursuant to ァ 13-22-204, is not a final appealable order. Frontier Materials, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 663 P.2d 1065 (Colo. App. 1983); Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).

Order compelling arbitration is interlocutory order which is not appealable even if court's order determines the substantive issue of arbitrability. Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).

Order denying a stay of arbitration not appealable. Section expressly authorizes an appeal from an order granting a stay of arbitration, not an order denying such a stay. Therefore, court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review an order denying a stay of arbitration. Gergel v. High View Homes, L.L.C., 58 P.3d 1132 (Colo. App. 2002).

Where the district court's denial of Denver's motion to dismiss contractor's claims and Denver's request to stay proceedings pending alternative dispute resolution raised issues of substantial public importance, permissive immediate appeal under this section was appropriate. City and County of Denver v. District Court, 939 P.2d 1353 (Colo. 1997).

Securities brokers acted inconsistently with right to arbitrate by pursuing discovery and confirming intent to go to trial in open court, after they knew that they had legally enforceable arbitration clause. Therefore, brokers waived right to arbitration, where brokers had completed discovery, but customer had not done so. Norden v. E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc., 739 P.2d 914 (Colo. App. 1987).

Defendants' failure to assert right to arbitration contemporaneously with their motions to dismiss was an act deemed to be a waiver of the right to have the dispute resolved by arbitration. Bashor v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, 773 P.2d 578 (Colo. App. 1989).

No waiver of right to arbitrate by failing to appeal denial of motion to dismiss where issue reserved in answer, trial data certificate, and motion for a new trial. Mountain Plains Constructors v. Torrez, 785 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1990).

No waiver of right to arbitrate by litigating claims that arose under a separate agreement that did not contain an arbitration clause. Breaker v. Corrosion Control Corp., 23 P.3d 1278 (Colo. App. 2001).

Appealable order. A denial of a motion to compel arbitration is an appealable order. However, an immediate appeal is permissive and not mandatory. Therefore, an order denying a motion to compel arbitration may also be appealed after final judgment. Mountain Plains Constructors v. Torrez, 785 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1990).

Appeals court had jurisdiction under this section although the trial court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the dispute was subject to arbitration, and entered an order awarding attorney fees. Camelot Investments, LLC v. LANDesign, LLC, 973 P.2d 1279 (Colo. App. 1999).

Uniform Arbitration Act authorizes party to arbitration agreement to appeal certain district court orders in the same manner and to the same extent as appeals may be taken from court orders and judgments in other civil actions. Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).

Court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review an arbitration award; jurisdiction extends only to orders and judgments entered by statutorily specified courts. Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).

Assertion that trial court erred in directing arbitration cannot be raised before an appellate court until there has been an award by the arbitrator on the merits of the controversy and a court order entered confirming the award. Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).

An arbitrator's award is not a "final judgment" reviewable by an appellate court. Upon confirmation of the award by a district court in accordance with ァ 13-22-213, and absent a timely motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award, there is no appealable issue. South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

The determination of the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate does not trigger a right to appeal under the Act. Gergel v. High View Homes, L.L.C., 58 P.3d 1132 (Colo. App. 2002).

General assembly's authority to determine the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is exclusive. South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

Parties to an arbitration agreement cannot define and prescribe the powers of a court of law. Where a contract term purported to allow an appellate court to conduct a substantive review of the arbitration panel's award, contrary to the controlling statutes, clause was void and unenforceable. South Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).


ゥ 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.

Document 30 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-229. Uniformity of application and construction.

13-22-229. Uniformity of application and construction.

Statute text

In applying and construing this part 2, consideration shall be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1730, ァ 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 13-22-223 as said section existed in 2003, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this part.


ゥ 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.

Document 31 of 31

Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 13 COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE/CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS/ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE - ARBITRATION - MEDIATION/PART 2 UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT/13-22-230. Savings clause.

13-22-230. Savings clause.

Statute text

This part 2 shall not affect an action or proceeding commenced or a right accrued before this part 2 takes effect. Except as otherwise provided in section 13-22-203, an arbitration agreement made before August 4, 2004, is governed by the "Uniform Arbitration Act of 1975".

History

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1730, ァ 1, effective August 4.

覧覧覧覧覧


ゥ 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.