GA Code § 9-9-14 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 9 - Arbitration|Article 1 - General Provisions|Part 1 - Arbitration Code|§ 9-9-14. Modification of Award by Court; Application; Grounds; Subsequent Confirmation of Award

  An application to modify the award shall be made to the court within three months after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant.   The court shall modify the award if:   There was a miscalculation of figures or a mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award;   The arbitrators awarded on a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted; or   The award is imperfect in a manner of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.     If the court modifies the award, it shall confirm the award as modified. If the court denies modification, it shall confirm the award made by the arbitrators.     (Code 1933, § 7-315, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 2270, § 1; Code 1981, §9-9-94; Code 1981, §9-9-14, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1988, p. 903, § 1.)   Law reviews.   - For article, "Comprehensive Arbitration of Domestic Relations Cases in Georgia," see 14 Ga. St. B.J. 20 (2008).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Editor's notes.   - In light of the similarity of the provisions, decisions under former Code Section 9-9-94 are included in the annotations for this Code section.   Exclusivity of statutory grounds.    - The statutory bases of O.C.G.A. § 9-9-14 provide the exclusive grounds for the modification of an arbitration award. Ralston v. City of Dahlonega, 236 Ga. App. 386, 512 S.E.2d 300 (1999).   Language of contract did not govern Native American tribal corporation.    - Trial court erred by confirming an arbitration award in favor of a supplier against a corporation owned by a Native American tribe because the corporation was an arm of the tribe entitled to tribal sovereign immunity, but was not authorized to waive tribal sovereign immunity by entering the contract containing the arbitration clause. The corporation did not waive the defense by failing to file an application to vacate the award. Churchill Fin. Mgmt. Corp. v. ClearNexus, Inc., 341 Ga. App. 798, 802 S.E.2d 85 (2017).   Effect of failure to support enumerations of error.    - Trial court's ruling confirming the arbitration award would be assumed to be correct, where the applicant presented no evidence in support of its enumerations other than arguments in its briefs and references to statements made in the opposing party's briefs. Trend-Pak of Atlanta, Inc. v. Arbor Commercial Div., Inc., 197 Ga. App. 137, 397 S.E.2d 592 (1990).   Modification or striking of award not required.    - Fact that arbitrators awarded an investor $190,000 in the investor's claim against a broker, which award did not correlate to the $694,448 that the investor sought in the investor's claim, did not render the award imperfect and did not require that the award be modified or stricken. Tanaka v. Pecqueur, 268 Ga. App. 380, 601 S.E.2d 830 (2004).    The trial court properly confirmed an arbitrator's award in a breach of contract action between a wastewater treatment company and a city as: (1) that part of the arbitrator's award which discussed the terms "maintenance" and "capital expenditures" was not inconsistent with the definitions contained in the contract; and (2) the award was based not only on the company's failure to make necessary repairs, but on the deterioration which resulted from that failure. Further, there was no requirement that the arbitrator's award include specific findings or reasons absent a request by the parties under O.C.G.A. § 9-9-39(a). Operations Mgmt. Int'l v. City of Forsyth, 288 Ga. App. 469, 654 S.E.2d 438 (2007).   Modification of award to comply with settlement agreement.    - There was no reason to curtail enforcement of a pre-arbitration high/low agreement reached by the parties which addressed both the range of the amount of the award and the incremental payment of the award; a trial court's orders modifying an arbitration award to conform to the high/low agreement and confirming the modified award were affirmed. Universal Mgmt. Concepts, Inc. v. Noferi, 270 Ga. App. 212, 605 S.E.2d 899 (2004).   Modification did not affect the merits of arbitrator's finding.    - The trial court's modification of an arbitrator's award did not affect the merits of the arbitrators' finding as to a patient's liability to a medical provider for services rendered. Lowe v. Ctr. Neurology Assocs., P.C., 288 Ga. App. 166, 653 S.E.2d 318 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0477, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 325 (Ga. 2008).    Modification of an arbitration award was warranted under O.C.G.A. § 9-9-14(b)(2) since a bankruptcy court limited the purpose of the arbitration to determining the disputed amount of a bankruptcy debtor's underlying state law claim against sellers of a modular home and adjustment of the allowed claim of the sellers to include any amounts awarded by the arbitrator, and the arbitrator exceeded the scope of the court's instructions by providing a 90-day period for the debtor to pay the full amount so the debtor could obtain permanent financing. Clark v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. (In re Clark), 411 Bankr. 507 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2009).   Request for modification untimely.    - As a county did not request modification of an arbitrator's award of back pay to county employees until eight months after the award was issued, and nearly one month after the award was confirmed, the county could not circumvent the statute of limitation governing arbitration awards by claiming on appeal that the award should have been modified. Fulton County v. Lord, 323 Ga. App. 384, 746 S.E.2d 188 (2013).    Attorney's objections to an attorney fee arbitration award in favor of the attorney's client's mother's estate were filed too late; the client's application to confirm the award was filed timely under O.C.G.A. § 9-9-12, but the attorney's objection was filed well outside the three-month limitation in O.C.G.A. §§ 9-9-13(a) and9-9-14(a). McFarland v. Roberts, 335 Ga. App. 40, 778 S.E.2d 349 (2015), cert. denied, No. S16C0522, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 229 (Ga. 2016).    Cited in Thacker Constr. Co. v. A Betterway Rent-A-Car, Inc., 186 Ga. App. 660, 368 S.E.2d 178 (1988) (decided under former § 9-9-94) Hardin Constr. Group, Inc. v. Fuller Enters., Inc., 265 Ga. 770, 462 S.E.2d 130 (1995); Sweatt v. International Dev. Corp., 242 Ga. App. 753, 531 S.E.2d 192 (2000);.