CO Code § 13-22-222 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 22 - Age of Competence - Arbitration - Mediation|Part 2 - Uniform Arbitration Act|§ 13-22-222. Confirmation of Award

  After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award, the party may make a motion to the court for an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to section 13-22-220 or 13-22-224 or is vacated pursuant to section 13-22-223.    Repealed.     History. Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1728, § 1, effective August 4. L. 2005: (2) repealed, p. 764, § 20, effective June 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 13-22-213 as it existed prior to 2004.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Since § 13-22-222 is similar to § 13-22-213 as it existed prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment of this part 2, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.   Purpose of article is to provide ground rules and procedures for enforcement of awards through the courts, but not to supersede any agreement entered into by the parties. Water Works Employees Local 1045 v. Bd. of Water Works, 44 Colo. App. 178, 615 P.2d 52 (1980).   Court's role is limited. The role of the court is considering an arbitrator's award is strictly limited. Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982).   The issues before the court in a confirmation proceeding are limited by this article. Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Cabs, Inc., 751 P.2d 61 (Colo. 1988); Container Tech. v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989); S. Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992); Kutch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 960 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1998).   The trial court erred in considering defendant's substantive defense concerning the constitutionality of the statute because the only defenses permitted to a request for confirmation of an arbitration award are whether grounds exist to vacate, modify, or correct such award and such defenses must be made within specified time limits. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Cabs, Inc., 751 P.2d 61 (Colo. 1988).   In the absence of appropriate grounds to modify, vacate, or correct an award, a trial court is required to affirm the award without review of the merits. McNaughton & Rodgers v. Besser, 932 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1996); Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. App. 2004).   A court is limited on review to modify or correct an arbitration award only upon statutory grounds and may not review the merits of the arbitrator's decision. Duncan v. Nat'l Home Ins. Co., 36 P.3d 191 (Colo. App. 2001); Levy v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 293 P.3d 40 (Colo. App. 2011).   When arbitration award is for all damages incurred by plaintiff, which under state law includes prejudgment interest, district court's subsequent order granting prejudgment interest was an impermissible modification of arbitration award. Levy v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 293 P.3d 40 (Colo. App. 2011).   Trial court correctly denied plaintiff's motion to confirm the award where defendant had filed an application to modify or correct the award with the arbitrator. Applehans v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 68 P.3d 594 (Colo. App. 2003).   District court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to confirm arbitration award while a motion to modify or clarify the award is before the arbitrator. If the arbitrator dies or is otherwise unavailable to rule on the motion, the court must appoint a replacement arbitrator to consider the pending motions. The replacement arbitrator may act only pursuant to statute and may not redetermine the merits of the award. In re Roth, 2017 COA 45 , 395 P.3d 1226.   Failure to take oath does not invalidate proceedings. Failure of the arbitrators to take an oath does not invalidate proceedings which comply with the requirement of both the uniform act and the arbitration agreement. In re Salter v. Farner, 653 P.2d 413 (Colo. App. 1982).   Arbitrator held deprived of binding power by contract. Where under the contract at issue, binding arbitration had been expressly excluded by the specific provision for advisory arbitration, arbitrator was deprived of any power to bind either party. Water Works Employees Local 1045 v. Bd. of Water Works, 44 Colo. App. 178, 615 P.2d 52 (1980).   Uniform Arbitration Act authorizes party to arbitration agreement to apply to district court for order confirming arbitration award after award has been entered. Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).   When a party attacks the validity of an arbitration award, he bears the burden of sustaining the attack. Container Tech. v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989).   The party challenging the validity of an arbitration award bears a heavy burden of establishing sufficient evidence of partiality. McNaughton & Rodgers v. Besser, 932 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1996).   Arbitrators may not be deposed for the purpose of inquiring into their thought processes. Container Tech. v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989).   Unconfirmed arbitration award not enforceable through contempt proceedings. Where neither spouse in the post-decree matter petitioned the district court to confirm the arbitrator's award, court erred in finding husband in contempt for failing to comply with order concerning children's therapy. In re Leverett, 2012 COA 69 , 318 P.3d 31.