(1) Upon application made within ninety (90) days after delivery of a copy of the award
to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award where:
(a) 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;
(b) 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
(c) The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the
controversy.
(2) 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.
(3) An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the alternative with
an application to vacate the award.
Effective: July 13, 1984
History: Created 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 278, sec. 13, effective July 13, 1984.
Notes of Decisions
Dutschke v. Jim Russell Realtors, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 817 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Further, KRS 417.170 provides as follows: (1) Upon application made within ninety (90) days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award where: (a) There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the…”
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Bluegrass Powerboats, 424 S.W.3d 902 (Ky. 2014).
“C § 11; KRS 417.170. But if there is no valid arbitration agreement, then the court retains its full jurisdiction to proceed as in any other case, and the arbitration acts have no applicability.”
Fischer v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 248 S.W.3d 567 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “160 and KRS 417.170. Thus, entry of the Order of Judgment was made without regard to Elaina’s objection.”
Ison v. Robinson, 411 S.W.3d 766 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013).
“” Hamblin then stated a general conclusion that “the challenges forwarded by [Campbell] go to the merits of the decision, and therefore fail” and noted that even if KRS 417.170(1) allowed an arbitrator to modify or correct an award based on the merits, no such modification or…”
Jacob v. Dripchak, 331 S.W.3d 278 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“That this Court hereby confirms the Arbitrator’s Clarified Award and pursuant to KRS 417.170 issues a Judgment in accordance with the Arbitrator’s Award and Clarified Award; 6.”
Hardy v. Beach, 575 S.W.3d 694 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
“050 confers the courts with subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce an arbitration award or enter judgment consistent therewith.”
Swetnam Design Constr., Inc. v. Saurer, 382 S.W.3d 73 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “170, 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 (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of KRS 417.170, or for the purpose of clarifying the award.”
Fia Card Servs., N.A. v. Callahan, 298 S.W.3d 463 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “160, or to modify or correct the award in accordance with KRS 417.170. He simply failed to pay FIA the amount awarded.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 417.170(1) — 2 cases
Ison v. Robinson, 411 S.W.3d 766 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013).
“” Hamblin then stated a general conclusion that “the challenges forwarded by [Campbell] go to the merits of the decision, and therefore fail” and noted that even if KRS 417.170(1) allowed an arbitrator to modify or correct an award based on the merits, no such modification or…”
Fia Card Servs., N.A. v. Callahan, 298 S.W.3d 463 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
“160, or to modify or correct the award in accordance with KRS 417.170. He simply failed to pay FIA the amount awarded.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 417.170(l)(a) — 1 case
Swetnam Design Constr., Inc. v. Saurer, 382 S.W.3d 73 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“170, 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 (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of KRS 417.170, or for the purpose of clarifying the 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.