1. Upon application of a party, the district court shall vacate an award if any of the
following apply:
a. The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other illegal means.\n\nTue Dec 09 21:57:20 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 679A (23, 0)
§679A.12, ARBITRATION 4\n\n b. There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, corruption in any
of the arbitrators, or misconduct prejudicing the rights of a party.
c. The arbitrators exceeded their powers.
d. The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown
for the postponement, refused to hear evidence material to the controversy, or conducted
the hearing contrary to the provisions of section 679A.5, in a manner which prejudiced
substantially the rights of a party.
e. There was no arbitration agreement, the issue was not adversely determined in
proceedings under section 679A.2, and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing
without raising the objection.
f. Substantial evidence on the record as a whole does not support the award. The court
shall not vacate an award on this ground if a party urging the vacation has not caused the
arbitration proceedings to be reported, if the parties have agreed that a vacation shall not
be made on this ground, or if the arbitration has been conducted under the auspices of the
American arbitration association.
2. The fact that the relief awarded 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.
3. An application under this section shall be made within ninety days after delivery of
a copy of the award to the applicant. However, if the application to vacate an award is
predicated upon corruption, fraud, or other illegal means, it shall be made within ninety
days after those grounds are known or should have been known.
4. In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in subsection 1, paragraph “e”,
the district court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided in the
agreement, or in the absence of a method in the agreement, by the district court in accordance
with section 679A.3, or if the award is vacated on grounds set forth in subsection 1, paragraph
“c” or “d” of this section, the district court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who
made the award or their successors appointed in accordance with section 679A.3. The time
within which the agreement requires the award to be made is applicable to the rehearing and
commences from the date of the order.
[C51, §2110; R60, §3617; C73, §3427; C97, §4397; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12706; C46, 50, 54,
58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §679.12; 81 Acts, ch 202, §12]
C83, §679A.12
Referred to in §679A.9, 679A.11
\n
Notes of Decisions
Ales v. Anderson, Gabelmann, Lower & Whitlow, P.C., 728 N.W.2d 832 (Iowa 2007).
· cites it 12× “The district court confirmed the arbitrator’s findings relating to the breach and the damage award for that breach, vacated the arbitrator’s award on attorney’s fees and costs, and remanded the case back to the arbitrator as required by Iowa Code section 679A.12. Ales appeals.…”
O'MALLEY v. Gundermann, 618 N.W.2d 286 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 24× “6; (2) claimed that the arbitrator’s decision was instead subject to review under Iowa Code section 679A.12; (3) asserted that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petition was not filed in a timely manner; and (4) alleged that, by proceeding with…”
Humphreys v. Joe Johnston Law Firm, P.C., 491 N.W.2d 513 (Iowa 1992).
· cites it 11× “See Iowa Code §§ 679A.12, 679A.13. Although certain exhibits may be missing, this fact is not sufficient evidence of prejudice to require the modification, correction, or vacation of the award.”
$99 Down Payment, Inc. v. Garard, 592 N.W.2d 691 (Iowa 1999).
· cites it 5× “11 provides: Upon application of a party, the district court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits imposed under sections 679A.12 and 679A.13 grounds are urged for vacating, modifying, or correcting the award, in which case the district court shall proceed as…”
LCI, INC. v. Chipman, 572 N.W.2d 158 (Iowa 1997).
· cites it 8× “The sellers petitioned the district court to vacate the award under Iowa Code section 679A.12. The district court denied the petition to vacate, and the sellers appealed.”
Postville Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Billmeyer, 548 N.W.2d 558 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 2× “Instead of reinstating Billmeyer, the school district filed an application in district court under Iowa Code section 679A.12(l)(e) (1993) to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award.”
W. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 797 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 2011).
“” Iowa Code § 679A.12(1)(£) (2011). The Iowa Supreme Court interprets the statute to allow limited factual review.”
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(1) — 8 cases
Ales v. Anderson, Gabelmann, Lower & Whitlow, P.C., 728 N.W.2d 832 (Iowa 2007).
“The district court confirmed the arbitrator’s findings relating to the breach and the damage award for that breach, vacated the arbitrator’s award on attorney’s fees and costs, and remanded the case back to the arbitrator as required by Iowa Code section 679A.12. Ales appeals.…”
W. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 797 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 2011).
“” Iowa Code § 679A.12(1)(£) (2011). The Iowa Supreme Court interprets the statute to allow limited factual review.”
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(1)(a) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(1)(b) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(1)(c) — 3 cases
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(1)(f) — 5 cases
LCI, INC. v. Chipman, 572 N.W.2d 158 (Iowa 1997).
“The sellers petitioned the district court to vacate the award under Iowa Code section 679A.12. The district court denied the petition to vacate, and the sellers appealed.”
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(2) — 7 cases
Ales v. Anderson, Gabelmann, Lower & Whitlow, P.C., 728 N.W.2d 832 (Iowa 2007).
“The district court confirmed the arbitrator’s findings relating to the breach and the damage award for that breach, vacated the arbitrator’s award on attorney’s fees and costs, and remanded the case back to the arbitrator as required by Iowa Code section 679A.12. Ales appeals.…”
Humphreys v. Joe Johnston Law Firm, P.C., 491 N.W.2d 513 (Iowa 1992).
“See Iowa Code §§ 679A.12, 679A.13. Although certain exhibits may be missing, this fact is not sufficient evidence of prejudice to require the modification, correction, or vacation of the award.”
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(3) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(f) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(l)(e) — 3 cases
Postville Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Billmeyer, 548 N.W.2d 558 (Iowa 1996).
“Instead of reinstating Billmeyer, the school district filed an application in district court under Iowa Code section 679A.12(l)(e) (1993) to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award.”
LCI, INC. v. Chipman, 572 N.W.2d 158 (Iowa 1997).
“The sellers petitioned the district court to vacate the award under Iowa Code section 679A.12. The district court denied the petition to vacate, and the sellers appealed.”
— Iowa Code § 679A.12(l)(f) — 5 cases
O'MALLEY v. Gundermann, 618 N.W.2d 286 (Iowa 2000).
“6; (2) claimed that the arbitrator’s decision was instead subject to review under Iowa Code section 679A.12; (3) asserted that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petition was not filed in a timely manner; and (4) alleged that, by proceeding with…”
Humphreys v. Joe Johnston Law Firm, P.C., 491 N.W.2d 513 (Iowa 1992).
“See Iowa Code §§ 679A.12, 679A.13. Although certain exhibits may be missing, this fact is not sufficient evidence of prejudice to require the modification, correction, or vacation of the award.”
LCI, INC. v. Chipman, 572 N.W.2d 158 (Iowa 1997).
“The sellers petitioned the district court to vacate the award under Iowa Code section 679A.12. The district court denied the petition to vacate, and the sellers appealed.”
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.