Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 21. Arbitration and Award » Article 2. Uniform Arbitration Act
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.011 (2026)

Modification or correction of award

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Upon application made within ninety days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award where:

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.

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.

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

1986, c. 614.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Marks v. Marks, 548 S.E.2d 919 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marks v. Marks, 548 S.E.2d 919 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 11× “Under Code § 8.01-581.011, entitled “Modification or correction of award,” a party seeking to challenge the arbitration award may also apply to the court within ninety days after delivery of the award to the party to have the court modify or correct the award under the following…”
SIGNAL Corp. v. Keane Fed. Sys., Inc., 574 S.E.2d 253 (Va. 2003). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-581.011 permits a circuit court to modify or correct an award when “[t]here was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award.”
Waterfront Marine Constr., Inc. v. North End 49ers Sandbridge Bulkhead Groups A, B & C, 468 S.E.2d 894 (Va. 1996). · cites it 2× “WMC also sought a modification of the award pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.011. After considering memoranda and argument of counsel, the trial court entered an order on March 30, 1995, denying WMC’s motion to vacate, granting WMC’s motion to modify by removing approximately $17,000…”
Trs. of Asbury United Methodist Church v. Taylor & Parrish, Inc., 452 S.E.2d 847 (Va. 1995). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-581.011 provides that, unless the trial court grants an application to modify or correct an arbitration award, “the court shall confirm the award as made.”
Seguin v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., 672 S.E.2d 877 (Va. 2009). · cites it 2× “010, the circuit court retains jurisdiction to vacate an arbitration award; pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.011, the circuit court retains jurisdiction to modify or correct an arbitration award.”
Anteon Corp. v. BTG, Inc., 62 Va. Cir. 41 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “§ 11 ; Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.011 . When the previous finding is made, the Court may elect to modify, instead of vacate, an award if it can do so without affecting the merits of the decision.”
Shabnam Sachdeva v. Kumar Sangaran (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 22× “In her assignments of error, wife argues that the trial court erred by confirming the arbitration award without a substantive hearing instead of modifying it pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.011; wife asserts that modification was necessary because the arbitrator exceeded the…”
Shabnam Sachdeva v. Kumar Sangaran (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 22× “In her assignments of error, wife argues that the trial court erred by confirming the arbitration award without a substantive hearing instead of modifying it pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.011; wife asserts that modification was necessary because the arbitrator exceeded the…”
Bradley R. Wood & Linda J. Wood, Trs. of the Wood Fam. Trust v. GE Custom Homes LLC (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 13× “” The Woods contend both that Werther miscalculated the award and that the trial court erred in failing to consider the arbitration record in evaluating whether there was miscalculation.”
Church Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. v. Ephesus Richmond Seventh-Day Adventist Church, etc. (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “This ruling resulted in the dismissal of Church Mutual’s application to modify an insurance appraisal award under Code § 8.01-581.011. The award was made pursuant to the terms of the parties’ insurance contract.”
Virginia E. Co. v. N. C. Monroe Constr. Co., 56 Va. Cir. 220 (Salem Cir. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “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; *229 2. The arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the…”
Pieper v. Bison Bldg. Co., 71 Va. Cir. 101 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.011 (Michie 2006).”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.011(1): 3 cases
Bradley R. Wood & Linda J. Wood, Trs. of the Wood Fam. Trust v. GE Custom Homes LLC (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “” The Woods contend both that Werther miscalculated the award and that the trial court erred in failing to consider the arbitration record in evaluating whether there was miscalculation.”
Shabnam Sachdeva v. Kumar Sangaran (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “In her assignments of error, wife argues that the trial court erred by confirming the arbitration award without a substantive hearing instead of modifying it pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.011; wife asserts that modification was necessary because the arbitrator exceeded the…”
Shabnam Sachdeva v. Kumar Sangaran (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “In her assignments of error, wife argues that the trial court erred by confirming the arbitration award without a substantive hearing instead of modifying it pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.011; wife asserts that modification was necessary because the arbitrator exceeded the…”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.011(2): 2 cases
Shabnam Sachdeva v. Kumar Sangaran (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “In her assignments of error, wife argues that the trial court erred by confirming the arbitration award without a substantive hearing instead of modifying it pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.011; wife asserts that modification was necessary because the arbitrator exceeded the…”
Shabnam Sachdeva v. Kumar Sangaran (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “In her assignments of error, wife argues that the trial court erred by confirming the arbitration award without a substantive hearing instead of modifying it pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.011; wife asserts that modification was necessary because the arbitrator exceeded the…”
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.