(a) Upon application of a party to confirm, modify, or vacate an award, and made within
30 days after delivery of a copy of an award to the applicant, the court may submit
the award to the arbitrators for modification or may consider modification under this
section.
(b) If the court considers modification, it shall modify the award where it finds:
(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.
(c) If modification is granted, the court shall modify the award so as to effect its intent
and shall confirm the award as so modified and corrected.
(d) An application to modify an award shall be made within 30 days after delivery of a
copy of the award to the applicant. It may be joined in the alternative with an application
to vacate the award. (Added 1985, No. 95, § 2.)
Shahi v. Ascend Fin. Servs., Inc., 898 A.2d 116 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 5דUnder the VAA, an arbitration award may be modified if it meets any of the criteria set forth in 12 V.S.A. § 5678, including if “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.”
Vermont Built, Inc. v. Krolick, 2008 VT 131 (Vt. 2008). “On appeal, homeowners contend that: (1) the trial court’s modification of the arbitrator’s decision was not done in compliance with 12 V.S.A. § 5678(b); (2) the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees; and (3) the court abused its discretion in awarding…”
Springfield Teachers Ass'n v. Springfield Sch. Directors, 705 A.2d 541 (Vt. 1997). “; see 12 V.S.A. § 5678(b)(1) (court may modify award if it is based on “evident miscalculation of figures”), but not where the calculation is more than ministerial.”
Brinckerhoff v. Brinckerhoff, 889 A.2d 701 (Vt. 2005). “As the trial court here cogently observed, however, these issues were sharply contested at the arbitration hearing, and the fact that the panel declined to adopt husband’s characterization of the inheritance and investment accounts “does not constitute an evident miscalculation…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5678(b) — 3 cases
Vermont Built, Inc. v. Krolick, 2008 VT 131 (Vt. 2008). “On appeal, homeowners contend that: (1) the trial court’s modification of the arbitrator’s decision was not done in compliance with 12 V.S.A. § 5678(b); (2) the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees; and (3) the court abused its discretion in awarding…”
Shahi v. Ascend Fin. Servs., Inc., 898 A.2d 116 (Vt. 2006). “Under the VAA, an arbitration award may be modified if it meets any of the criteria set forth in 12 V.S.A. § 5678, including if “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.”
Brinckerhoff v. Brinckerhoff, 889 A.2d 701 (Vt. 2005). “As the trial court here cogently observed, however, these issues were sharply contested at the arbitration hearing, and the fact that the panel declined to adopt husband’s characterization of the inheritance and investment accounts “does not constitute an evident miscalculation…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5678(b)(1) — 2 cases
Shahi v. Ascend Fin. Servs., Inc., 898 A.2d 116 (Vt. 2006). “Under the VAA, an arbitration award may be modified if it meets any of the criteria set forth in 12 V.S.A. § 5678, including if “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.”
Springfield Teachers Ass'n v. Springfield Sch. Directors, 705 A.2d 541 (Vt. 1997). “; see 12 V.S.A. § 5678(b)(1) (court may modify award if it is based on “evident miscalculation of figures”), but not where the calculation is more than ministerial.”
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.