(a) Upon motion made within ninety days after the movant receives notice of the award pursuant to Section 20 [44-7A-20 NMSA 1978] or within ninety days after the movant receives notice of a modified or corrected award pursuant to Section 21 [44-7A-21 NMSA 1978], the court shall modify or correct the award if:

(1) there was an evident mathematical miscalculation or an evident mistake in the description of a person, thing or property referred to in the award;

(2) the arbitrator has made an award on a claim not submitted to the arbitrator and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the claims submitted; or

(3) the award is imperfect in a matter of form not affecting the merits of the decision on the claims submitted.

(b) If a motion made under Subsection (a) is granted, the court shall modify or correct and confirm the award as modified or corrected. Otherwise, unless a motion to vacate is pending, the court shall confirm the award. A motion to modify or correct an award pursuant to this section may be joined with a motion to vacate the award.

History: Laws 2001, ch. 227, § 25.

Compiler's note. — Laws 2002, ch. 227, § 33 repealed the former Uniform Arbitration Act, Sections 44-7-1 to 44-7-22 NMSA 1978, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 168, §23. The Uniform Arbitration Act compiled as 44-7A-1 to 44-7A-32 NMSA 1978 was enacted effective July 1, 2001.

Provisions exclusive. — Section 44-7-12 NMSA 1978 (now Section 44-7A-24 NMSA 1978) and this section of the act establish the statutory grounds for vacating, modifying, or correcting an award. In the absence of any of these statutory grounds, the court must confirm an award submitted for review. Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1993-NMSC-035, 115 N.M. 622, 857 P.2d 22.

Findings required as to offset against proceeds already received. — Trial court erred in confirming arbitration award without clarification from arbitrators whether offsets for settlement proceeds already received were included in the award calculations. Casias v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 1999-NMCA-046, 126 N.M. 772, 975 P.2d 385, cert. denied, 127 N.M. 389, 981 P.2d 1207.

Award amended for other purposes void. — An amended award for purposes other than those specified in Subsection A (now Subsection (a)) is void and of no effect. Chaco Energy Co. v. Thercol Energy Co., 1981-NMSC-127, 97 N.M. 127, 637 P.2d 558.

Scope of review. — It is not the function of the court to hear the case de novo and consider the evidence presented to the arbitrators, but rather to conduct an evidentiary hearing and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law upon each issue raised in the application to vacate or modify the award. Melton v. Lyon, 1989-NMSC-027, 108 N.M. 420, 773 P.2d 732.

Once an arbitration award is entered, the finality of arbitration weighs heavily in its favor and cannot be upset except under exceptional circumstances. Melton v. Lyon, 1989-NMSC-027, 108 N.M. 420, 773 P.2d 732.

District courts should exercise caution in modifying an arbitration award. — In the interest of finality, district courts should exercise great caution when asked to set aside an arbitration award, so where an arbitrator's award, in a termination of employment case, was consistent with the terms of the bylaws specified in the arbitration order, the district court erred in modifying the arbitration award on grounds not supported by the evidence. Shah v. Devasthali, 2016-NMCA-053, cert. denied.

Errors of law and fact. — The district court does not have the authority to review arbitration awards for errors as to the law or the facts; if the award is fairly and honestly made and if it is within the scope of the submission, the award is a final and conclusive resolution of the parties' dispute. Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1993-NMSC-035, 115 N.M. 622, 857 P.2d 22.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 4 Am. Jur. 2d. Alternative Dispute Resolution § 234 et seq.

Time and jurisdiction for review, reopening, modification or reinstatement of award or agreement, 165 A.L.R. 9

6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 168.