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: Construction Law Update: Communication is Key! And Other Lessons Learned From A Recent Public Project Court Decision

December 6, 2018In a recent decision, the Ohio Court of Claims entered a $2.2 million judgment in favor of the general trades contractor, and against a public university, in connection with an on-campus renovation project. Mid American Construction, LLC v. Univ. of Akron, Ct. of Cl. No. 2016-00685JD, 2018-Ohio-4513.Client Alert

CLIENT ALERT: Ohio Incentivizes Cybersecurity Measures

November 15, 2018On November 2, 2018, Ohio’s Data Protection Act (“DPA”) went into effect. The DPA incentivizes Ohio businesses to proactively address cybersecurity and data protection by providing an affirmative defense/safe harbor for claims related to data breach. However, the safe harbor is only applicable if the organization can prove “reasonable compliance” to the DPA.Client Alert

CLIENT ALERT: Update on Discrimination

October 23, 2018The “#metoo” presence and the recent Kavanaugh confirmation hearings have brought sexual discrimination issues to the forefront of the American mind. Always an incendiary and confusing topic, it also includes various permutations of issues involving sex, sex stereotyping, sexual orientation, and transgender situations.Client Alert

CLIENT ALERT: Ohio Supreme Court Rules that a Subcontractor's Construction Defects are Not a Covered "Occurrence" Under a CGL Policy

October 10, 2018Although a growing number of states have held that CGL policies provide coverage for damages caused by the defective work of subcontractors, the Ohio Supreme Court has refused to join the national trend. In Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs., Inc., 2018-Ohio-4057, the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled that a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is not a covered “occurrence” under a typical CGL policy.Client Alert

CLIENT ALERT: Taxpayer Passport Application will be Denied Due to Unpaid Taxes

July 23, 2018In late 2015, Congress passed The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST) into law. This law allows the IRS and State Department to refuse to issue a Passport if the taxpayer has a seriously delinquent tax debt. The law also permits the IRS and State Department to revoke a taxpayer’s Passport for these same delinquent tax debts. To be considered a seriously delinquent tax debt, the tax debt must total more than $51,000.
Older posts
Newer posts