Issue: In Maryland, if an arbitration award has been issued, can the procedure be re-opened?
| Area of Law: | Alternative Dispute Resolution |
| Keywords: | Arbitration procedure; Re-opening; Award issued |
| Jurisdiction: | Maryland |
| Cited Cases: | 33 Mich. 127; 73 So. 188; 280 U.S. 566; 78 N.Y.2d 873; 29 Vt. 72; 135 N.J. Super. 552; 277 Md. 740; 50 N.Y.S.2d 222; 82 Vt. 156; 732 A.2d 907; 144 N.J. Super. 239; 343 A.2d 804; 74 Md. App. 438; 368 A.2d 1001; 348 A.2d 870; 418 N.Y.S.2d 1; 72 A. 324; 365 A.2d 209; 548 N.Y.S.2d 642; 279 Md. 385; 538 A.2d 329; 628 N.Y.S.2d 876; 294 Ark. 255; 127 Md. App. 245; 577 N.E.2d 56; 32 F.2d 481; 115 Md. App. 460; 216 A.D.2d 808; 743 S.W.2d 389; 352 Md. 31; 720 A.2d 912 |
| Cited Statutes: | § 3-222(a), § 3-222(c), § 3-223(a),(b), § 3-224, § 3-224(a)(1), § 3-224(a)(2) |
| Date: | 03/01/2001 |
Once an arbitration award has been issued in a proceeding, the Maryland Act provides several methods of re-opening the procedure: (1) application or petition to modify or correct the award; and (2) petition to vacate the award.
A party to an arbitration may apply to the arbitrators to modify or correct the award. § 3-222(a). However, such an application must be filed “within 20 days after delivery of the award to the applicant.” Id. Moreover, the grounds for such modification or correction are strictly limited to the following: (1) evident miscalculation of figures or evident mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award; (2) the arbitrators have awarded on a matter not submitted to them, and correction will not affect the merits; (3) the award is imperfect in form, not affecting the merits; or (4) for the purpose of clarity. § 3-222(c). In addition, a party to the arbitration may file a petition with the court to modify or correct the award on the grounds listed in (1)-(3) above. § 3-223(a), (b). A petition to the court must be filed within ninety days after delivery of the award to the applicant. § 3-223(a).
The Maryland courts have strictly interpreted these provisions. For example, Nick-George Ltd. P=ship v. Ames-Ennis, Inc., 279 Md. 385, 368 A.2d 1001 (1977), involved an arbitration award that was submitted to the parties on September 18, 1973. Id. at 1002. On December 4, 1973, […]