2018 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 52 - Civil Actions
Chapter 909 - Arbitration Proceedings
Section 52-420 - Motion to confirm, vacate or modify award.

(a) Any application under section 52-417, 52-418 or 52-419 shall be heard in the manner provided by law for hearing written motions at a short calendar session, or otherwise as the court or judge may direct, in order to dispose of the case with the least possible delay.

(b) No motion to vacate, modify or correct an award may be made after thirty days from the notice of the award to the party to the arbitration who makes the motion.

(c) For the purpose of a motion to vacate, modify or correct an award, such an order staying any proceedings of the adverse party to enforce the award shall be made as may be deemed necessary. Upon the granting of an order confirming, modifying or correcting an award, a judgment or decree shall be entered in conformity therewith by the court or judge granting the order.

(1949 Rev., S. 8163; P.A. 82-160, S. 159.)

History: P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators.

Cited. 136 C. 206. Filing motion with clerk of Superior Court within time limited is sufficient though notice not given defendants until after that time. 137 C. 298. Cited. 146 C. 17. Procedure re modification of award discussed. 147 C. 139. Cited. 149 C. 691; 155 C. 278; 163 C. 327; 176 C. 401; 179 C. 678; 181 C. 449; 190 C. 323; 197 C. 26; 200 C. 376; 201 C. 50; 206 C. 113; 208 C. 352; 212 C. 83; 217 C. 110; 225 C. 339; 226 C. 475; 229 C. 359.

Cited. 4 CA 339; 7 CA 272; 20 CA 1, 5; 29 CA 736; 32 CA 250; 33 CA 1; 36 CA 29; 39 CA 122; Id., 444. In matter where trial court had confirmed arbitration award, and thereafter no motion to modify the judgment was filed within requisite 30-day period, trial court committed reversible error when it added requirement that plaintiff's assignment of interest in certain property to defendant was a prerequisite to granting of a bank execution in plaintiff's favor; trial court's action amounted to improper modification of arbitration award rather than effectuation of the award. 88 CA 74.

Fact that notice of the application was given defendants by a summons rather than by a rule to show cause is not important. 16 CS 505. Contemplates and permits procedure involving use of motions in substitution for conventional forms of pleading. 20 CS 91. Taxation of costs for such proceedings are in the discretion of the court as there is no provision otherwise in the statutes. 21 CS 331. Cited. 29 CS 25; Id., 289; 45 CS 130.

Failure to move under statute will preclude aggrieved party from seeking correction of award in circuit court. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 66.

Subsec. (a):

When the parties' dispute concerns one arbitration award, reviewing an application to vacate and an application to confirm simultaneously, in furtherance of judicial economy, is a reasonable way to “dispose of the case with the least possible delay”; language of Subsec. plain and unambiguous. 161 CA 348.

Subsec. (b):

Claim of fraud does not toll the 30-day period within which a motion to vacate arbitration award must be filed pursuant to Subsec. 264 C. 307. The 30-day filing period applies to an application to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that it violates public policy. 285 C. 278.

Trial court's action in setting appropriate amount of compensation essentially operated as a modification of the judgment confirming arbitration award and was improper since it came after expiration of the 30-day period. 72 CA 334. It is not necessary to file motion to vacate an award within the time frame set forth in statute in cases where the arbitration award has no legal effect due to the arbitrator's untimely award, and the parties' lack of waiver of 30-day requirement. 100 CA 373. The 30-day filing period in Subsec. applies to a motion to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that it violates public policy. 108 CA 360. Compliance with section requires timely filing of an application to vacate an arbitration award, not timely service. 165 CA 467.

Request to the arbiter for modification of an award to correct a typographical error does not toll the period within which to file an application to vacate the award. 52 CS 592; judgment affirmed, see 144 CA 77.