435.405. Vacating an award — de novo judicial review, when. — 1. Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where:
(1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;
(2) 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;
(3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers;
(4) 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 435.370, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or
(5) There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings pursuant to section 435.355 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; 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.
2. An application pursuant to this section shall be made within ninety 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 ninety days after such grounds are known or should have been known.
3. In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in subdivision (5) of subsection 1 of this section or subsection 5 of this section, 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 435.360, or if the award is vacated on grounds set forth in subdivisions (3) and (4) of subsection 1 of this section the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors appointed in accordance with section 435.360. 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.
4. If the application to vacate is denied and no motion to modify or correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the award.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, if an arbitration award in any legal proceeding pursuant to chapter 452 or chapter 454 determines an issue regarding a child of the marriage, such determination shall be subject to de novo judicial review.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
40
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case:
Jacobs v. Corley, 732 S.W.2d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
Jacobs v. Corley, 732 S.W.2d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 26× “§ 435.405 RSMo (Supp. 1980) (all further references shall be to RSMo 1980, unless otherwise provided); Count II sought damages for conversion of brokerage account records; Count III alleged prima facie tort for Jacobs' refusal to release funds held by Dean Witter to Corley.”
Nat'l Avenue Bldg. Co. v. Stewart, 910 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 5× “” Pleading A, referred to above, invokes two statutes, one of which is § 435.405. 2 The other statute invoked by Pleading A is § 435.”
Murray v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 37 S.W.3d 228 (Mo. 2001).
· cites it 2× “095 lacks judicial review, which it says is fatal to section 226.095’s constitutionality. But as noted above, the commission does not question the constitutionality of chapter 435.”
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Francis, 872 S.W.2d 484 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 5× “Stifel moved to vacate the award in circuit court according to § 435.405, RSMo 1986. The trial court granted Stifel’s motion to vacate.”
Air Shield Remodelers, Inc. v. Biggs, 969 S.W.2d 315 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Section 435.405 provides a court shall vacate an award where: (1) [t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2) [t]here was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the…”
Parks v. MBNA Am. Bank, 204 S.W.3d 305 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “In vacating or modifying an arbitration award, the trial court is limited to the grounds set forth in sections 435.405 and 435.410. Holman v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.”
Cornelius v. CJ MORRILL, 302 S.W.3d 176 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing with prejudice his petition to vacate an arbitration award under section 435.405 RSMo (2000) 1 for failure to state a claim.”
Westridge Inv. Grp., L.P. v. McAtee, 968 S.W.2d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “Appellants filed a motion to vacate the award in the trial court claiming that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under section 435.405. 2 The trial court denied Appellants’ motion to vacate and confirmed the award.”
R.L. Hulett & Co. v. Barth, 884 S.W.2d 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “an arbitrator’s award is limited to the grounds set forth in § 435.405 and § 435.410, RSMo 1986, for vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.”
Hayob v. Osborne, 992 S.W.2d 265 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “Whether Appellants timely filed an application to vacate the amended arbitration award under § 435.405 is indeterminable. As will be discussed infra, Appellants seek to vacate the amended arbitration award claiming that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.405(1) — 2 cases
R.L. Hulett & Co. v. Barth, 884 S.W.2d 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
“an arbitrator’s award is limited to the grounds set forth in § 435.405 and § 435.410, RSMo 1986, for vacating, modifying, or correcting 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.