Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title IV Chapter 251
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 13 (2026)

Award; modification by court; time for application; grounds; joinder with application to vacate

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 13. (a) Upon application made within thirty days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award if:—

(1) 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;

(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) 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.

(c) An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the alternative with an application to vacate the award.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1964–2018 · leading case: Quirk v. Data Terminal Sys., Inc., 475 N.E.2d 1208 (Mass. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Quirk v. Data Terminal Sys., Inc., 475 N.E.2d 1208 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 10× “SeeG. L. c. 251, § 13. We granted further appellate review to consider the sole issue raised on appeal: whether the judge erred under G.”
Miles v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 589 N.E.2d 314 (Mass. 1992). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 251, §§ 13, 16. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff’s son also owned an automobile.”
Connecticut Valley Sanitary Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Zielinski, 763 N.E.2d 1080 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 251, § 13 (a) (1), incorporated in G.”
Trs. of Boston & Maine Corp. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 294 N.E.2d 340 (Mass. 1973). · cites it 2× “In seeking, as a second alternative, a modification or correction of the award, the MBTA relied on the ground, stated in G. L. c. 251, § 13 (a), as appearing in St.”
Katz, Nannis & Solomon, P.C. v. Levine, 46 N.E.3d 541 (Mass. 2016). “G. L. c. 251, § 13. 10 The language in section 13(j) of the agreement that Levine points to is the following: “The decision of the arbitrator shall be final; provided, however, solely in the event of a material, gross and flagrant error by the arbitrator, such decision shall be…”
Barletta v. French, 607 N.E.2d 410 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “In accordance with G. L. c. 251, § 13(6), the Superior Court judge should have granted the application of the Barletta party to “modify and correct the award so as to effect its intent and .”
Dadak v. Com. Ins., 758 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “This was based on the statutory grounds that “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,” G. L. c. 251, § 13(a)(1). After a hearing, the judge ruled there was such an “evident…”
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Malacaria, 662 N.E.2d 241 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “251, § 12, to vacate the award or one under G. L. c. 251, § 13, to modify the award. Instead, Lumbermens apparently relied exclusively on its motion for summary judgment in the declaratory judgment action, previously filed with the Superior Court on September 4, 1987.”
Glenn Acres, Inc. v. Cliffwood Corp., 228 N.E.2d 835 (Mass. 1967). “The purpose of the fund was to insure that the buyer complete certain road work to the satisfaction of the Northboro planning board. When counsel for the sellers first declared to the judge that “the only thing we are asking for in this whole case [is] that you determine .”
Maltz v. Smith Barney, Inc., 427 Mass. 560 (Mass. 1998). “251, § 12, permits a party to request that a court vacate an arbitration award; G. L. c. 251, § 13, permits a party to apply for a modification of an award.”
Fazio v. Employers'Liab. Assurance Corp. Ltd., 197 N.E.2d 598 (Mass. 1964). “G. L. c. 251, § 13, as appearing in St. 1960, c.”
Ciampa v. Chubb Grp. of Ins. Companies, 525 N.E.2d 1344 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988). “” The Uniform Arbitration Act, G. L. c. 251, § 13(a)(1), as amended by St.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 13(6) — 1 case
Barletta v. French, 607 N.E.2d 410 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). “In accordance with G. L. c. 251, § 13(6), the Superior Court judge should have granted the application of the Barletta party to “modify and correct the award so as to effect its intent and .”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 13(a)(1) — 2 cases
Dadak v. Com. Ins., 758 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “This was based on the statutory grounds that “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,” G. L. c. 251, § 13(a)(1). After a hearing, the judge ruled there was such an “evident…”
Ciampa v. Chubb Grp. of Ins. Companies, 525 N.E.2d 1344 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988). “” The Uniform Arbitration Act, G. L. c. 251, § 13(a)(1), as amended by St.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 13(a)(2) — 1 case
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Malacaria, 662 N.E.2d 241 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). “251, § 12, to vacate the award or one under G. L. c. 251, § 13, to modify the award. Instead, Lumbermens apparently relied exclusively on its motion for summary judgment in the declaratory judgment action, previously filed with the Superior Court on September 4, 1987.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 13(a)(3) — 2 cases
Barletta v. French, 607 N.E.2d 410 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). “In accordance with G. L. c. 251, § 13(6), the Superior Court judge should have granted the application of the Barletta party to “modify and correct the award so as to effect its intent and .”
Fox Boston Seaport Land, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 22 Mass. L. Rptr. 253 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 251, § 13(a)(l) — 1 case
Fox Boston Seaport Land, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 22 Mass. L. Rptr. 253 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007).
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.