REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.5078 Award; error or omissions.
Sec. 5078.
(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties and arbitrator in writing or on the record, the arbitrator shall issue the written award on each issue within 60 days after either the end of the hearing or, if requested by the arbitrator, after receipt of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(2) Subject to the other restrictions in this subsection, if the parties reach an agreement regarding child support, custody, or parenting time, the agreement shall be placed on the record by the parties under oath and shall be included in the arbitrator's written award. An arbitrator shall not include in the award a child support amount that deviates from the child support formula developed by the state friend of the court bureau unless the arbitrator complies with the same requirements for such a deviation prescribed for the court under the law that applies to the domestic relations dispute that is being arbitrated.
(3) An arbitrator under this chapter retains jurisdiction to correct errors or omissions in an award until the court confirms the award. Within 14 days after the award is issued, a party to the arbitration may file a motion to correct errors or omissions. The other party to the arbitration may respond to such a motion within 14 days after the motion is filed. The arbitrator shall issue a decision on the motion within 14 days after receipt of a response to the motion or, if a response is not filed, within 14 days after expiration of the response period.
History: Add. 2000, Act 420, Eff. Mar. 28, 2001
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
Vyletel-Rivard v. Rivard, 777 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
Vyletel-Rivard v. Rivard, 777 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 9× “602(J)(2) applies to the DRAA, when MCL 600.5078 is considered. 5 In relevant part, MCL 600.”
Washington v. Washington, 770 N.W.2d 908 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“" [6] Defendant also argues that the arbitrator violated MCL 600.5078(1) by not issuing his ruling within 60 days after the arbitration hearing.”
Harvey v. Harvey, 668 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 600.5078; and (8) enforcement, filing, and sanctions, M.”
Washington v. Washington, 283 Mich. App. 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“” Defendant also argues that the arbitrator violated MCL 600.5078(1) by not issuing his ruling within 60 days after the arbitration hearing.”
Vyletel-rivard v. Rivard, 782 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that: (1) MCL 600.5078(1) and (3) contemplate no more than two arbitration awards (the initial written award and any modified award following a motion to correct errors and omissions); (2) MCL 600.”
Norman Davidson v. Wendy Davidson (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “MCL 600.5078—60-DAY REQUIREMENT Plaintiff argues that the arbitration award is void because the arbitrator failed to issue the award with the required 60-day timeframe.”
Mary Elizabeth Zelasko v. Richard Anthony Zelasko (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “The trial court explained: Defendant takes great exception to the fact that the arbitrator did not issue his award within 60 days of conclusion of the hearing in December and contends that by doing so, he exceeded his authority under the law.”
Robert Jene Cummings v. Jeanette Rae Cummings (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiff also asserts that the mediator acted contrary to law by issuing the award eight months after the proceedings concluded, which was contrary to MCL 600.5078(1). MCL 600.5078(1) does require the arbitrator to issue the written award within 60 days after the end of the…”
Vita S Shannon v. Aron L Ralston (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “MCL 600.5078(1) provides, “Unless otherwise agreed by the parties and arbitrator in writing or on the record, the arbitrator shall issue the written award on each issue within 60 days after either the end of the hearing or, if requested by the arbitrator, after receipt of…”
Nejla Israel v. Ramiz Putrus (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, neither request for clarification constituted a proper “motion to correct errors or omissions” under MCL 600.5078(3). Vyletel-Rivard v Rivard, 286 Mich App 13, 24 ; 777 NW2d 722 (2009).”
Zainab Hans v. Ahsan Hans (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“MCL 600.5078(3). The arbitrator’s final award, which formed the basis for the judgment of divorce, was filed with the court on February 4, 2019.”
Maha Chidiac v. Naji Chidiac (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“Two weeks later, husband filed a motion to correct alleged errors or omissions in the award under MCL 600.5078(3). B. HUSBAND’S CHALLENGES TO THE ARBITRATION AWARD Husband argued that the arbitrator made numerous errors in the attorney and expert fees portion of the award, with…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5078(1) — 8 cases
Washington v. Washington, 770 N.W.2d 908 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“" [6] Defendant also argues that the arbitrator violated MCL 600.5078(1) by not issuing his ruling within 60 days after the arbitration hearing.”
Vyletel-Rivard v. Rivard, 777 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“602(J)(2) applies to the DRAA, when MCL 600.5078 is considered. 5 In relevant part, MCL 600.”
Washington v. Washington, 283 Mich. App. 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“” Defendant also argues that the arbitrator violated MCL 600.5078(1) by not issuing his ruling within 60 days after the arbitration hearing.”
Norman Davidson v. Wendy Davidson (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“MCL 600.5078—60-DAY REQUIREMENT Plaintiff argues that the arbitration award is void because the arbitrator failed to issue the award with the required 60-day timeframe.”
Vyletel-rivard v. Rivard, 782 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. 2010).
“The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that: (1) MCL 600.5078(1) and (3) contemplate no more than two arbitration awards (the initial written award and any modified award following a motion to correct errors and omissions); (2) MCL 600.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5078(3) — 5 cases
Vyletel-Rivard v. Rivard, 777 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“602(J)(2) applies to the DRAA, when MCL 600.5078 is considered. 5 In relevant part, MCL 600.”
Vyletel-rivard v. Rivard, 782 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. 2010).
“The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that: (1) MCL 600.5078(1) and (3) contemplate no more than two arbitration awards (the initial written award and any modified award following a motion to correct errors and omissions); (2) MCL 600.”
Nejla Israel v. Ramiz Putrus (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Accordingly, neither request for clarification constituted a proper “motion to correct errors or omissions” under MCL 600.5078(3). Vyletel-Rivard v Rivard, 286 Mich App 13, 24 ; 777 NW2d 722 (2009).”
Zainab Hans v. Ahsan Hans (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“MCL 600.5078(3). The arbitrator’s final award, which formed the basis for the judgment of divorce, was filed with the court on February 4, 2019.”
Maha Chidiac v. Naji Chidiac (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“Two weeks later, husband filed a motion to correct alleged errors or omissions in the award under MCL 600.5078(3). B. HUSBAND’S CHALLENGES TO THE ARBITRATION AWARD Husband argued that the arbitrator made numerous errors in the attorney and expert fees portion of the award, 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.