Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938 (2026)

Vacating an award

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Vacating award.  Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where:  
A. The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;   [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
B. There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party;   [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
C. The arbitrators exceeded their powers;   [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
D. The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of section 5931, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party;   [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
E. There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 5928 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; or   [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
F. The award was not made within the time fixed therefor by the agreement or, if not so fixed, within such time as the court has ordered, and the party has not waived the objection.   [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
But the fact that the relief was such that it 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.  
[PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
2.  Application.  An application under this section shall be made within 90 days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, except that, if predicated upon corruption, fraud or other undue means, it shall be made within 90 days after such grounds are known or should have been known.  
[PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
3.  Rehearing.  In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in paragraph E of subsection 1 the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided in the agreement, or in the absence thereof, by the court in accordance with section 5929, or, if the award is vacated on grounds set forth in paragraphs C and D of subsection 1 the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors appointed in accordance with section 5929. 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.  
[PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
4.  Confirmation of award.  If the application to vacate is denied and no motion to modify or correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the award.  
[PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 87 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case: Hl 1, LLC v. Riverwalk, LLC, 2011 ME 29 (Me. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hl 1, LLC v. Riverwalk, LLC, 2011 ME 29 (Me. 2011). · cites it 6× “11 of the OGG Operating Agreement, the court severed the judicial review provision contained in section 11.01. [¶ 14] In September 2009, after a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court concluded that Forsley was collaterally es-topped from claiming that the MOU was *731 not…”
Cape Elizabeth Sch. Bd. v. Cape Elizabeth Teachers Ass'n, 459 A.2d 166 (Me. 1983). · cites it 5× “In June, 1981, the Board filed a motion in Superior Court, Cumberland County, to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938, and the Association filed a cross-motion to confirm the award pursuant to 14 M.”
Bd. of Directors v. Teachers' Ass'n of Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 33, 395 A.2d 461 (Me. 1978). · cites it 5× “Defendant Teachers’ Association appeals from a decision of the Superior Court, Aroostook County, vacating the award of an arbitrator pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938. 1 *462 We sustain the appeal, and remand with instructions to confirm the arbitrator’s award.”
Anderson v. Banks, 37 A.3d 915 (Me. 2012). · cites it 5× “14 M.R.S. § 5938(1) (2011). . Title 14 M.”
Barrett v. McDonald Investments, Inc., 2005 ME 43 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “Castle, The Revocability of Contract Provisions Controlling Resolution of Future Disputes Between the Parties, 67 LAW & CONTEMP.”
Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. v. N. Assurance Co., 603 A.2d 470 (Me. 1992). · cites it 5× “14 M.R.S.A. § 5938 (1980) provides in pertinent part: 1.”
James G. Stanley Jr. v. Michael A. Liberty, 2015 ME 21 (Me. 2015). · cites it 3× “Liberty and the Liberty corporate entities then moved to vacate, correct, or modify the final, corrected award pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §§ 5938, 5939, arguing that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers and that his decision was based on a manifest disregard of the applicable law…”
Bennett v. Prawer, 2001 ME 172 (Me. 2001). · cites it 3× “14 M.R.S.A. § 5938(1). [¶ 10] In the present case, the parties are deemed to have bargained for arbitration.”
Leete & Lemieux, P.A. v. Horowitz, 53 A.3d 1106 (Me. 2012). · cites it 4× “Horowitz then moved to vacate the award pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 5938 (2011). 5 Horowitz asserted that the Panel “expressly refus[ed] to even consider [Horowitz’s] statute of limitations argument,” referencing statements that he contended were in the confidential addendum to the…”
Maine Educ. Ass'n v. Maine Cmty. Coll. Sys. Bd. of Trs., 2007 ME 70 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “Title 14 M.R.S. § 5938 (2006) provides in pertinent part: 1.”
MacOmber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 2003 ME 121 (Me. 2003). “In the absence of an opportunity for a party to be heard on the affirmative defense of res judicata in a summary judicial proceeding, *137 the presumption of arbitrability would in many instances be rendered virtually irre-buttable because that party would be compelled to…”
Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., 395 A.2d 453 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “An excess of powers is a ground for seeking to vacate the award pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938(1)(C). It is not however, a ground upon which Merrill could seek clarification and modification by the arbitrators pursuant to 14 M.”
Show all 87 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(1) — 22 cases
Hl 1, LLC v. Riverwalk, LLC, 2011 ME 29 (Me. 2011). “11 of the OGG Operating Agreement, the court severed the judicial review provision contained in section 11.01. [¶ 14] In September 2009, after a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court concluded that Forsley was collaterally es-topped from claiming that the MOU was *731 not…”
Barrett v. McDonald Investments, Inc., 2005 ME 43 (Me. 2005). “Castle, The Revocability of Contract Provisions Controlling Resolution of Future Disputes Between the Parties, 67 LAW & CONTEMP.”
Bennett v. Prawer, 2001 ME 172 (Me. 2001). “14 M.R.S.A. § 5938(1). [¶ 10] In the present case, the parties are deemed to have bargained for arbitration.”
Leete & Lemieux, P.A. v. Horowitz, 53 A.3d 1106 (Me. 2012). “Horowitz then moved to vacate the award pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 5938 (2011). 5 Horowitz asserted that the Panel “expressly refus[ed] to even consider [Horowitz’s] statute of limitations argument,” referencing statements that he contended were in the confidential addendum to the…”
Cape Elizabeth Sch. Bd. v. Cape Elizabeth Teachers Ass'n, 459 A.2d 166 (Me. 1983). “In June, 1981, the Board filed a motion in Superior Court, Cumberland County, to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938, and the Association filed a cross-motion to confirm the award pursuant to 14 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(1)(A) — 7 cases
MacOmber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 2003 ME 121 (Me. 2003). “In the absence of an opportunity for a party to be heard on the affirmative defense of res judicata in a summary judicial proceeding, *137 the presumption of arbitrability would in many instances be rendered virtually irre-buttable because that party would be compelled to…”
Anderson v. Banks, 37 A.3d 915 (Me. 2012). “14 M.R.S. § 5938(1) (2011). . Title 14 M.”
Randall v. Conley, 2010 ME 68 (Me. 2010).
Presby v. Pen Bay Builders (Me. Super. Ct 2001).
Anderson v. Banks (Me. Super. Ct 2011).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(1)(B) — 4 cases
Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. v. N. Assurance Co., 603 A.2d 470 (Me. 1992). “14 M.R.S.A. § 5938 (1980) provides in pertinent part: 1.”
Anderson v. Mills (Me. Super. Ct 2018).
DiVeto v. Bell Trucking, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2004).
Weston v. Burke (Me. Super. Ct 2000).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(1)(C) — 35 cases
James G. Stanley Jr. v. Michael A. Liberty, 2015 ME 21 (Me. 2015). “Liberty and the Liberty corporate entities then moved to vacate, correct, or modify the final, corrected award pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §§ 5938, 5939, arguing that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers and that his decision was based on a manifest disregard of the applicable law…”
Bureau of Maine State Police v. Pratt, 568 A.2d 501 (Me. 1989).
Union River Valley Teachers Ass'n v. Lamoine Sch. Comm., 2000 ME 57 (Me. 2000).
Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., 395 A.2d 453 (Me. 1978). “An excess of powers is a ground for seeking to vacate the award pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938(1)(C). It is not however, a ground upon which Merrill could seek clarification and modification by the arbitrators pursuant to 14 M.”
Roosa v. Tillotson, 1997 ME 121 (Me. 1997).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(1)(D) — 5 cases
Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. v. N. Assurance Co., 603 A.2d 470 (Me. 1992). “14 M.R.S.A. § 5938 (1980) provides in pertinent part: 1.”
Cape Elizabeth Sch. Bd. v. Cape Elizabeth Teachers Ass'n, 459 A.2d 166 (Me. 1983). “In June, 1981, the Board filed a motion in Superior Court, Cumberland County, to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938, and the Association filed a cross-motion to confirm the award pursuant to 14 M.”
Leete & Lemieux, P.A. v. Horowitz, 53 A.3d 1106 (Me. 2012). “Horowitz then moved to vacate the award pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 5938 (2011). 5 Horowitz asserted that the Panel “expressly refus[ed] to even consider [Horowitz’s] statute of limitations argument,” referencing statements that he contended were in the confidential addendum to the…”
Cold Mountain Builders, Inc. v. Lewis, 746 A.2d 921 (Me. 2000).
Klein v. Klein (Me. Super. Ct 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(1)(E) — 11 cases
Hl 1, LLC v. Riverwalk, LLC, 2011 ME 29 (Me. 2011). “11 of the OGG Operating Agreement, the court severed the judicial review provision contained in section 11.01. [¶ 14] In September 2009, after a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court concluded that Forsley was collaterally es-topped from claiming that the MOU was *731 not…”
Cape Elizabeth Sch. Bd. v. Cape Elizabeth Teachers Ass'n, 459 A.2d 166 (Me. 1983). “In June, 1981, the Board filed a motion in Superior Court, Cumberland County, to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938, and the Association filed a cross-motion to confirm the award pursuant to 14 M.”
Matthew Eastwick v. Cate Street Capital, Inc., 2017 ME 206 (Me. 2017).
Roosa v. Tillotson, 1997 ME 121 (Me. 1997).
Anderson v. Banks, 37 A.3d 915 (Me. 2012). “14 M.R.S. § 5938(1) (2011). . Title 14 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(1)(F) — 1 case
Monmouth Sch. Comm. v. Huston, 437 A.2d 621 (Me. 1981).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(1)(c) — 3 cases
Bd. of Directors v. Teachers' Ass'n of Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 33, 395 A.2d 461 (Me. 1978). “Defendant Teachers’ Association appeals from a decision of the Superior Court, Aroostook County, vacating the award of an arbitrator pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938. 1 *462 We sustain the appeal, and remand with instructions to confirm the arbitrator’s award.”
Maine Cent. R.R. v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R., 395 A.2d 1107 (Me. 1978).
Maine State Employees Ass'n v. State, 517 A.2d 58 (Me. 1986).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(1X0) — 1 case
Dep't of Transp. v. Maine State Employees Ass'n, SEIU Local 1989, 606 A.2d 775 (Me. 1992).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(2) — 4 cases
Maine Educ. Ass'n v. Maine Cmty. Coll. Sys. Bd. of Trs., 2007 ME 70 (Me. 2007). “Title 14 M.R.S. § 5938 (2006) provides in pertinent part: 1.”
Nco Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Folsom, 2007 ME 152 (Me. 2007).
Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., 395 A.2d 453 (Me. 1978). “An excess of powers is a ground for seeking to vacate the award pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5938(1)(C). It is not however, a ground upon which Merrill could seek clarification and modification by the arbitrators pursuant to 14 M.”
State of Maine v. Maine State Employees Ass'n, SEIU Local 1989, 2016 ME 148 (Me. 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(3) — 1 case
Paper, Allied-Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers Int'l Union, Local 1-9 v. S.D. Warren Co., 382 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Me. 2005).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(4) — 7 cases
Maine Dep't of Transp. v. Maine State Employees Ass'n, 581 A.2d 813 (Me. 1990).
City of Lewiston v. Lewiston Firefighters Ass'n, IAG, Local No. 785, 629 A.2d 50 (Me. 1993).
Augusta Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n, Local 1650 v. City of Augusta, 600 A.2d 403 (Me. 1991).
Bureau of Emp. Relations v. Maine State Employees Ass'n, Seiu Local 1989, 639 A.2d 638 (Me. 1994).
Rockwell v. 3Crow, LLC (Me. Super. Ct 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(C) — 1 case
Dep't of Corr. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 93, 747 A.2d 592 (Me. 2000).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(l)(A) — 3 cases
Bloom v. Tamir (Me. Super. Ct 2021).
Wood v. Patriot Vinyl Siding Co. (Me. Super. Ct 2022).
Miller v. King (Me. Super. Ct 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(l)(B) — 2 cases
Kapothanasis v. Kapothanasis (Me. Super. Ct 2020).
Miller v. King (Me. Super. Ct 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5938(l)(C) — 1 case
Anderson v. Banks (Me. Super. Ct 2011).
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.