Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5939 (2026)

Modification or correction of award

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Application. Upon application made within 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; [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]

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 [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]

C. The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy. [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]

[PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]

2. Modification or correction of award. 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.

[PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]

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

[PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1977–2016 · leading case: Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., 395 A.2d 453 (Me. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., 395 A.2d 453 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “In pertinent part 14 M.R.S.A. § 5939(1) provides: Upon application .”

Maine Educ. Ass'n v. Maine Cmty. Coll. Sys. Bd. of Trs., 2007 ME 70 (Me. 2007). “Title 14 M.R.S. § 5939 provides in pertinent part: 1.”

Alberta Graf v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2016 ME 153 (Me. 2016). “See 14 M.R.S. § 5939; Randall v Conley, 2010 ME 68, ¶11 , 2 A.”

Randall v. Conley, 2010 ME 68 (Me. 2010). “Grounds for modification of an award include where “[t]here was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award .”

James G. Stanley Jr. v. Michael A. Liberty, 2015 ME 21 (Me. 2015). “” 14 M.R.S. § 5939(1)(A), (C) (2014); see also Cutler Assocs.”

H.E. Sargent, Inc. v. Town of Millinocket, 478 A.2d 683 (Me. 1984). “In the instant appeal, the Town claims that submission to the arbitrators for clarification is barred because Sargent did not apply for modification or correction of the award within the 90 day time limitation of 14 M.R.S.A. § 5939 (1980). 4 Indeed, none of the parties made such…”

R. C. Audette & Sons, Inc. v. LaRochelle, 373 A.2d 1226 (Me. 1977). “” A party is also entitled, pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5939(1), to seek modification or correction of an award on the basis of three specific grounds.”

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). · cites it 2× “”; (2) Count II: PACE claims the arbitrator ignored the CBA’s provisions and “dispensed his own brand of industrial justice”; and, (5) Count V: Citing 14 M.R.S.A. § 5939(1)(B), PACE claims that by deciding the issue of remedy, the arbitrator acted in an manner inconsistent with…”

Stanley v. Liberty (Me. Super. Ct 2014). · cites it 3× “§ 5938 (2013), or correct or modify the award pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 5939 (2013). After oral argument on Februaty 12, 2014, and a thorough review of the arbitrator's decision, the applicable law, and the parties' arguments, the court affirms the arbitration award in full.”

Morabito v. Nelsen (Me. Super. Ct 2009). · cites it 2× “A dispute arose concerning the construction of the Morabitos' residence. The Morabitos alleged that the vinyl siding and roof shingles of the residence were improperly installed, and that there were certain structural defects that needed repair.”

Weston v. Burke (Me. Super. Ct 2000). · cites it 2× “On that same date, petitioner filed an application for modification or correction of Fee Arbitration Panel award invoking 14 M.RS.A. § 5939. Respondent has moved to dismiss on the ground that the motion and application were untimely filed thereby denying this court jurisdiction…”

Alberta Graf v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2016 ME 109 (Me. 2016). “Standard of Review [¶9] Generally, pursuant to the Uniform Arbitration Act, an arbitration award can be modified by the Superior Court only for certain limited reasons, and our review of the court’s action is similarly limited.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5939(1) — 3 cases

Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., 395 A.2d 453 (Me. 1978). “In pertinent part 14 M.R.S.A. § 5939(1) provides: Upon application .”

R. C. Audette & Sons, Inc. v. LaRochelle, 373 A.2d 1226 (Me. 1977). “” A party is also entitled, pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5939(1), to seek modification or correction of an award on the basis of three specific grounds.”

Amer Fed'n of State Cnty. & Mun. Employees Council 93 v. City of South Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2014).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5939(1)(A) — 4 cases

Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., 395 A.2d 453 (Me. 1978). “In pertinent part 14 M.R.S.A. § 5939(1) provides: Upon application .”

Randall v. Conley, 2010 ME 68 (Me. 2010). “Grounds for modification of an award include where “[t]here was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award .”

James G. Stanley Jr. v. Michael A. Liberty, 2015 ME 21 (Me. 2015). “” 14 M.R.S. § 5939(1)(A), (C) (2014); see also Cutler Assocs.”

Stanley v. Liberty (Me. Super. Ct 2014). “§ 5938 (2013), or correct or modify the award pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 5939 (2013). After oral argument on Februaty 12, 2014, and a thorough review of the arbitrator's decision, the applicable law, and the parties' arguments, the court affirms the arbitration award in full.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5939(1)(B) — 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). “”; (2) Count II: PACE claims the arbitrator ignored the CBA’s provisions and “dispensed his own brand of industrial justice”; and, (5) Count V: Citing 14 M.R.S.A. § 5939(1)(B), PACE claims that by deciding the issue of remedy, the arbitrator acted in an manner inconsistent with…”

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.