Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

Client Alert
June 8, 2021

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award.

R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.

The Court emphasized that in R.C. 2711.13, the General Assembly “specifically addressed the discretionary power of the trial court to stay proceedings in the interest of fairness to both parties… [and therefore] the trial court is empowered to balance the interests of the parties.” Id. Now, “the limitation period in R.C. 2711.13 as an upper limit that may be shortened by another party’s filing a pleading or motion to which a response is required.” Id.

Ultimately, if and when a party to the arbitration files to confirm the award before the expiration of the three-month period following the date of the award, “any party that wishes to oppose confirmation must, within the three-month period, respond with a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award, on the date of or before the hearing on the application to confirm.” Id. The Court explained that “failing to do so may result in the award’s being confirmed.” Id.

For additional questions, please contact Business & Corporate Law Attorney Krista Warren at kdwarren@bmdllc.com.

business and corporate lawKrista WarrenArbitration Agreements
Client Alert

CLIENT ALERT: New Overtime Rule Raises Minimum Salary Requirements and Other Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act

September 24, 2019Today, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its Final Rule updating the regulations under the Fair Labor Standard Act: Effective January 1, 2020, employees who make less than $35,568 are now eligible for overtime pay under a final rule issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”). The DOL expects 1.3 million workers to become newly eligible for overtime by updating the thresholds. The new rule will raise the salary threshold to $684 per week ($35,568 annualized) from $455 per week. This means that even if your employee qualifies under one of the overtime exemptions, if the employee is not earning at least $684/week, the employee will be eligible for overtime and minimum wage requirements.Client Alert

CLIENT ALERT: BWC issuing $1.5 billion in premium refunds to Ohio employers

July 9, 2019The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) has now reported that the Board of Directors approved a proposal to send $1.5 billion of the agency’s revenues to Ohio employers covered by the BWC system.Client Alert

CLIENT ALERT: Medicare Providers having multiple locations should verify and revalidate their address information to avoid claim denials

June 4, 2019MLN Matters SE19007 “Activation of Systematic Validation Edits for OPPS Providers with Multiple Service Locations” notifies providers that Medicare is now requiring the exact match of all addresses for practice locations that are listed on provider claim submissions to Medicare.Client Alert

CLIENT ALERT: Capitalizing on New Opportunity Zone Incentives to Spur Economic Development

May 13, 2019CLIENT ALERT: New Opportunity Zone Incentives Promise to Spur Economic DevelopmentClient Alert

CLIENT ALERT: HB 159 - Regulatory Indemnity Provisions in Public Works Design Contracts

April 12, 2019Representative Louis W. Blessing III (R-Colerain Township) recently introduced HB 159 to regulate the use of indemnity provisions in professional design contracts related to public improvements. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to prohibit public agencies from requiring design professionals to indemnify them from claims which are not attributable to negligent or other wrongful conduct on the part of the design professional.
Older posts
Newer posts