Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1513 (2026)

Modification or correction of award

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Upon application made within ninety days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, if judgment has not been entered thereon, the court shall modify or correct the award where:

1. There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award;

2. The arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted; or

3. The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.

B. If the application is granted, the court shall modify and correct the award so as to effect its intent and shall confirm the award as so modified and corrected. Otherwise, the court shall confirm the award as made.

C. An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the alternative with an application to vacate the award.

D. After judgment, the award shall be subject to the powers of the court in the same manner as any other judgment which may be subject to review under rule 60(c) of the rules of civil procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 36× “A.R.S. § 12-1513, on the other hand, provides for modification, correction or vacation of an award.”
Nolan v. Kenner, 250 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “¶ 13 Modification of an arbitration award is governed by A.R.S. § 12-1513(A) (2003). A court may modify an arbitration award only if: 1.”
Creative Builders, Inc. v. Avenue Developments, Inc., 715 P.2d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “If the arbitrators committed factual or legal error in their resolution of issues within the scope of the submission, the trial court has no authority to remedy that error by modifying the award except upon application made setting forth one of the grounds set forth in A.”
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 109 P.3d 82 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 5× “2d 958 (1974), which imposed A.R.S. § 12-1513’s ninety-day limitation on a motion to vacate an arbitration award filed pursuant to A.”
Hatch v. Double Circle Ranch, 524 P.2d 958 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 8× “Appellees responded by a motion to dismiss asserting two grounds therefor: (1) lack of timeliness under A.R.S. § 12-1513, and (2) failure to state a claim for relief.”
Cundiff v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 145 P.3d 638 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “Unlike A.R.S. § 12-1513, § 12-1512 does not impose a statute of limitations.”
Fisher Ex Rel. Fisher v. Nat'l Gen. Ins., 965 P.2d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “section 12-1509 (twenty-day deadline for application to arbitrator to modify award); A.”
Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, Local No. 359 v. Arizona Mech. & Stainless, Inc., 863 F.2d 647 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-1513(A). 1 Richwood argues that two other sections of Arizona law apply which do not contain any statutes of limitation.”
EFC Dev. Corp. v. F. F. Baugh Plumbing & Heating Inc., 540 P.2d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). “court is pending under §§ 12-1511, 12-1512, or 12-1513, on submission to the arbitrators by the court under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of subsection A of § 12-1513, or for…”
Schmidt v. Schmidt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “Steve Is Not Entitled To Relief Under A.R.S. § 12-1513(A)(1). ¶34 Steve alternatively contends that the arbitrator made mathematical errors in awarding all damages to Joseph and Zoe.”
Holaday v. Foremost (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-1513(B). We express no opinion on how the causation and coverage issues should be resolved.”
Frazer Ryan v. Mayne (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “187 , 187–88 ¶ 4 (2005) (ruling under the original act, a motion to vacate is timely even if it is not filed within the 90-day limitation period in A.R.S. § 12-1513 if it is filed in response to a motion to confirm the award under A.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1513(0) — 1 case
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “A.R.S. § 12-1513, on the other hand, provides for modification, correction or vacation of an award.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1513(A) — 5 cases
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “A.R.S. § 12-1513, on the other hand, provides for modification, correction or vacation of an award.”
Nolan v. Kenner, 250 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 13 Modification of an arbitration award is governed by A.R.S. § 12-1513(A) (2003). A court may modify an arbitration award only if: 1.”
Creative Builders, Inc. v. Avenue Developments, Inc., 715 P.2d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “If the arbitrators committed factual or legal error in their resolution of issues within the scope of the submission, the trial court has no authority to remedy that error by modifying the award except upon application made setting forth one of the grounds set forth in A.”
Hatch v. Double Circle Ranch, 524 P.2d 958 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). “Appellees responded by a motion to dismiss asserting two grounds therefor: (1) lack of timeliness under A.R.S. § 12-1513, and (2) failure to state a claim for relief.”
Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, Local No. 359 v. Arizona Mech. & Stainless, Inc., 863 F.2d 647 (9th Cir. 1988). “Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-1513(A). 1 Richwood argues that two other sections of Arizona law apply which do not contain any statutes of limitation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1513(A)(1) — 2 cases
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “A.R.S. § 12-1513, on the other hand, provides for modification, correction or vacation of an award.”
Schmidt v. Schmidt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Steve Is Not Entitled To Relief Under A.R.S. § 12-1513(A)(1). ¶34 Steve alternatively contends that the arbitrator made mathematical errors in awarding all damages to Joseph and Zoe.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1513(A)(3) — 1 case
Creative Builders, Inc. v. Avenue Developments, Inc., 715 P.2d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “If the arbitrators committed factual or legal error in their resolution of issues within the scope of the submission, the trial court has no authority to remedy that error by modifying the award except upon application made setting forth one of the grounds set forth in A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1513(B) — 1 case
Holaday v. Foremost (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “A.R.S. § 12-1513(B). We express no opinion on how the causation and coverage issues should be resolved.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1513(C) — 1 case
Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “A.R.S. § 12-1513, on the other hand, provides for modification, correction or vacation of an award.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.