Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

Client Alert

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award.

R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.

The Court emphasized that in R.C. 2711.13, the General Assembly “specifically addressed the discretionary power of the trial court to stay proceedings in the interest of fairness to both parties… [and therefore] the trial court is empowered to balance the interests of the parties.” Id. Now, “the limitation period in R.C. 2711.13 as an upper limit that may be shortened by another party’s filing a pleading or motion to which a response is required.” Id.

Ultimately, if and when a party to the arbitration files to confirm the award before the expiration of the three-month period following the date of the award, “any party that wishes to oppose confirmation must, within the three-month period, respond with a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award, on the date of or before the hearing on the application to confirm.” Id. The Court explained that “failing to do so may result in the award’s being confirmed.” Id.

For additional questions, please contact Business & Corporate Law Attorney Krista Warren at kdwarren@bmdllc.com.


Planning for Wealth: Lessons from Athletes, Entertainers, and Executives

The financial challenges and strategies used by high-income earners like Donovan Mitchell, Taylor Swift, and Jamie Dimon are not just for the wealthy—they can apply to anyone managing significant assets. This article delves into essential wealth management techniques, from leveraging tax exemptions to navigating major liquidity events, providing valuable insights to help you achieve financial stability and preserve your wealth.

The Ohio Department of Medicaid Amends Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Rules

Ohio Department of Medicaid has updated definitions of fraud, waste, and abuse as well as given specificity and clarity to the list of examples.

Ohio Department of Medicaid Proposes Changes to Dental Reimbursement and Coverage Rule

The Ohio Department of Medicaid is proposing amendments to Ohio Administrative Code. There will be a hearing on the proposed rule changes August 12, 2024.

Will Division II and III Athletic Programs Survive the New Era of College Athletics?

The potential reclassification of student-athletes as employees presents major financial challenges for Division II and III sports programs, which may struggle to afford the costs and could be forced to cut or eliminate non-revenue-generating sports. Recent legal rulings, including the Alston case and Johnson v. NCAA, have challenged the NCAA's amateurism model and prompted a need for innovative solutions to sustain these programs.

Corporate Transparency Act: Business Owners Must Act Now

The Corporate Transparency Act requires all reporting companies to file their Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report by year-end to avoid penalties. Companies formed before January 1, 2024, have less than six months to comply. Learn more in a client alert by BMD Member Blake Gerney.