Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2610 — NE Code / Chapter 25 / Section 25-2610
View Statute 25-2610
Status: in_force

On application of a party or, if an application to the court is pending under section 25-2612 , 25-2613 , or 25-2614 , on submission to the arbitrators by the court under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated in subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(3) of section 25-2614 or for the purpose of clarifying the award. The application shall be made within twenty days after delivery of the award to the applicant. Written notice thereof shall be given forthwith to the opposing party, stating he or she must serve his or her objections thereto, if any, within ten days from the notice. The award so modified or corrected is subject to the provisions of sections 25-2612 to 25-2614 .

Laws 1987, LB 71, § 10.

An award does not become so vague and indefinite as to be unenforceable simply because a party can argue that a portion of it may be unclear or ambiguous. The Nebraska Court of Appeals erred in finding the award ambiguous and in ordering a remand to the arbitrator for clarification. Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 310 Neb. 824, 969 N.W.2d 651 (2022).

An award does not become so vague and indefinite as to be unenforceable simply because a party can argue that a portion of it may be unclear or ambiguous. The Nebraska Court of Appeals erred in finding the award ambiguous and in ordering a remand to the arbitrator for clarification. Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 310 Neb. 824, 969 N.W.2d 651 (2022).

An award may be recommitted for clarification where it is ambiguous to such an extent that it is impossible to determine its meaning and intent. However, remand for clarification is not the preferred course. When possible, courts should avoid remanding on the basis of ambiguity because of the interest in prompt and final arbitration. Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 310 Neb. 824, 969 N.W.2d 651 (2022).

An award may be recommitted for clarification where it is ambiguous to such an extent that it is impossible to determine its meaning and intent. However, remand for clarification is not the preferred course. When possible, courts should avoid remanding on the basis of ambiguity because of the interest in prompt and final arbitration. Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 310 Neb. 824, 969 N.W.2d 651 (2022).

In considering an application for confirmation of an arbitration award, the court has limited authority under this statutory section to remand to the arbitrator to clarify an ambiguous award. Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 310 Neb. 824, 969 N.W.2d 651 (2022).

In considering an application for confirmation of an arbitration award, the court has limited authority under this statutory section to remand to the arbitrator to clarify an ambiguous award. Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 310 Neb. 824, 969 N.W.2d 651 (2022).

Where an ambiguity can be resolved by the record, the district court need not remand for clarification; but where the ambiguity is not resolved by the record, the court must remand for clarification. Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 310 Neb. 824, 969 N.W.2d 651 (2022).

Where an ambiguity can be resolved by the record, the district court need not remand for clarification; but where the ambiguity is not resolved by the record, the court must remand for clarification. Signal 88 v. Lyconic, 310 Neb. 824, 969 N.W.2d 651 (2022).