Tennessee § 29-5-313 - Vacation of award.

§ 29-5-313. Vacation of award.

Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where: The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; The arbitrators exceeded their powers; The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to § 29-5-306, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under § 29-5-303 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection. The fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award. An application under this section shall be made within ninety (90) days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, except that, if predicated upon corruption, fraud or other undue means, it shall be made within ninety (90) days after such grounds are known or should have been known. In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in subdivision (a)(1)(E), the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided in the agreement, or in the absence thereof, by the court in accordance with § 29-5-304, or if the award is vacated on grounds set forth in subdivisions (a)(1)(C) and (D), the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors appointed in accordance with § 29-5-304. The time within which the agreement requires the award to be made is applicable to the rehearing and commences from the date of the order. If the application to vacate is denied and no motion to modify or correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the award. Acts 1983, ch. 462, § 12. Law Reviews. Alternative Dispute Resolution- Tuetken v. Tuetken: Reinforcing the Duty of the Court to Protect the Best Interests of the Child (Joshua Baker), 42 U. Mem. L. Rev. 831 (2012). Avoiding Unnecessary Punches: Skillful Crafting of Alternative Dispute Resolution Contract Clauses (David K. Taylor), 36 No. 4 Tenn. B.J. 20 (2000). Vacatur of Awards Under the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act: Substance, Procedure, and Strategies for Practitioners, 46 U. Mem. L. Rev. 271 (2015). Cited: Champion Int'l Corp. v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 779 F.2d 328, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25602 (6th Cir. 1985); International Talent Group, Inc. v. Copyright Management, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 217, 1988 Tenn. App. LEXIS 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Adams TV v. IBEW, Local 474, 932 S.W.2d 932, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 256 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Smith v. Smith, 989 S.W.2d 346, 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Team Design v. Gottlieb, 104 S.W.3d 512, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 508 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); River Links at Deer Creek, LLC v. Melz, 108 S.W.3d 855, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Aloisi v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., 321 F.3d 551, 2003 FED App. 62P, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 3366 (6th Cir. 2003); Benton v. Vanderbilt Univ., 137 S.W.3d 614, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 617 (Tenn. 2004); Thomas v. Pediatrix Med. Group of Tenn., P.C., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2010); Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2011); Brown v. Styles, — S.W.3d —, 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 450 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2011).