(a) On a party's application to the arbitrators or, if an application to the court is pending under G.S. 50-53 through G.S. 50-56, on submission to the arbitrators by the court under the conditions ordered by the court, the arbitrators may modify or correct the award for any of the following reasons:
(1) Upon grounds stated in G.S. 50-55(a)(1) and (a)(3).
(2) If the arbitrators have not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitration proceeding.
(3) To clarify the award.
(b) The application shall be made within 20 days after delivery of the award to the opposing party. The application must include a statement that the opposing party must serve any objections to the application within 10 days from notice. An award modified or corrected under this section is subject to the provisions of G.S. 50-51(a) through G.S. 50-51(f) and G.S. 50-53 through G.S. 50-56. (1999-185, s. 1; 2005-187, s. 11.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case:
State v. Levan, 388 S.E.2d 429 (N.C. 1990).
State v. Levan, 388 S.E.2d 429 (N.C. 1990).
“Corroboration has been defined as “the process of persuading the trier of the facts that a witness is credible — the opposite of impeachment.”
Brown v. Green, 165 S.E.2d 534 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).
“*514 Two of the signers of this exhibit #15 testified for the plaintiff. The testimony of these two, Elizabeth Cannady Bowman and Jacqueline M.”
Short v. Gen. Motors Corp., 320 S.E.2d 19 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
“Brandis, North Carolina Evidence Sections 50-52, 138 (2d rev. ed.). Even if the recorded statements had been admitted erroneously as substantive evidence and therefore hearsay, the availability of the declarants for cross-examina *458 tion removed the traditional problems…”
State v. Norman, 334 S.E.2d 247 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).
“Evidence, §§ 50-52 (2d rev. ed. 1982) and cases cited and discussed therein.”
Gallagher-Masonis v. Masonis (N.C. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “Both parties submitted requests for corrections or clarifications to the Arbitrator as allowed by North Carolina General Statute Section 50-52, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-52 (2023), and the only modification Husband contends was improper as a “substantive” change was the…”
Stewart v. Stewart (N.C. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “N.C.G.S. § 50-52 (delineating equitable distribution).”
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.