O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Statute text
(a) Pursuant to the procedure described in subsection (b) of this Code section, the arbitrators may change the award upon the following grounds:
(1) There was a miscalculation of figures or a 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)(1) An application to the arbitrators for a change in the award shall be made by a party within 20 days after delivery of the award to the applicant. Written notice of this application shall be served upon the other parties.
(2) Objection to a change in the award by the arbitrators must be made in writing to the arbitrators within ten days of service of the application to change. Written notice of this objection shall be served upon the other parties.
(3) The arbitrators shall dispose of any application made under this Code section in a written, signed order within 30 days after service upon them of objection to change or upon the expiration of the time for service of this objection. The parties may extend, in writing, the time for this disposition by the arbitrators either before or after its expiration.
(4) An award changed under this Code section shall be subject to the provisions of this part concerning the confirmation, vacation, and modification of awards by the court.
History
(Code 1933, § 7-312, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 2270, § 1; Code 1981, § 9-9-91; Code 1981, § 9-9-11, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1988, p. 903, § 1.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For article, "Construction Law," see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 173 (2001). For annual survey of construction law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (2004).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Award modification vacated. - Trial court properly vacated the modification of an existing award under O.C.G.A. § 9-9-13 after finding that the arbitration panel had overstepped its authority by modifying the merits of its award, when none of the statutory grounds for modification under subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 9-9-11 had been met. Conmac Corp. v. Southern Diversified Dev., Inc., 245 Ga. App. 895, 539 S.E.2d 532 (2000).
No ground existed for modification of arbitrator's award. - Arbitrator had broad authority to consider any disputes arising out of the contract consistent with the parties' agreement for the sale of the home; the seller specifically submitted to the arbitrator its claim for the damages arising from the change orders as did the purchaser and thus the issue was properly submitted to the arbitrator and no ground existed for modifying the award which found that the seller was not entitled to keep the earnest money because it was in material breach but was entitled to actual damages for the approved changes. Henderson v. Millner Devs., LLC, 259 Ga. App. 709, 578 S.E.2d 289 (2003).
Notes of Decisions
Conmac Corp. v. S. Diversified Dev., Inc., 539 S.E.2d 532 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 12× “The trial court confirmed the original award of $978,185 plus interest, but ruled that the arbitration panel had overstepped its authority by modifying the merits of this award when none of the grounds for modification under OCGA § 9-9-11 (a) had been met. Based upon this…”
Marchelletta v. Seay Constr. Servs., Inc., 593 S.E.2d 64 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “” *26 Following the filing of Seay’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, the Marchellettas filed their motion to vacate the award on the grounds “the award is vague and imperfect, and on the grounds the Arbitrator failed to follow the procedure of OCGA § 9-9-11.” OCGA §…”
Threatt v. Forsyth Cnty., 552 S.E.2d 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The trial court denied the motion, finding that the issue was moot because it determined that, despite the fact that the arbitrator had not determined prejudgment interest, the issue was within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and the Threatts should have moved to modify the…”
Henderson v. Millner Developments, LLC., 578 S.E.2d 289 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “See also OCGA §§ 9-9-11; 9-9-13. Henderson argues that the arbitrator lacked the authority to award Millner actual damages because the contract’s liquidated damages clause provided Millner’s sole remedy.”
Ralston v. City of Dahlonega, 512 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “” 2 In fact, Ralston’s argument that a palpable mistake of law will support the modification of an arbitration award is taken from language found in former OCGA § 9-9-11 to which Ralston cited, but which was repealed in 1988.”
Phan v. Andre & Blaustein, LLP, 709 S.E.2d 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “But see OCGA § 9-9-11 (permitting, upon timely application by a party, the arbitrator to change the award upon grounds, inter alia, that there was a miscalculation of figures or mistake in description of person, thing, or property referred to in award; that the arbitrators…”
LecStar Telecom, Inc. v. Grenfell, 616 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, LecStar Telecom claims that Grenfell’s failure to timely seek to modify or to vacate the award within the statutory time periods in OCGA §§ 9-9-11 and 9-9-14 precluded his efforts to change the award.”
City of Fayetteville v. Fayette Cnty., 318 S.E.2d 757 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 9-9-11. The city asserted this defense in its answer to the complaint, and the county presented no evidence whatever to refute the city’s allegation.”
Xie Law Offices, LLC v. Hou Min Luo (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 26× “” OCGA § 9-9-11 (a).2 “[A change] cannot be substantive 1 We address XLO’s enumerations of error in a different order than that presented in their brief.”
Magwell, LLC. v. Susan Wells-Wilson (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 13× “) Later that month, appellants filed objections to Susan Wells-Wilson’s request for clarification, citing OCGA § 9-9-11, the portion of the Georgia Arbitration Code section outlining the grounds and timing for a modification of an arbitration award.”
Docs of Ct, LLC v. Biotek Servs., LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “The arbitration rules agreed to by the parties permitted the new arbitrator to set such a deadline and permitted the exclusion of evidence for the failure to abide by the arbitration rules. As such, even if the new arbitrator had permitted Dr.”
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.