An arbitrator's post-award statement of clarification is not part of the award for vacatur or modification purposes, and a court's order requesting a clarification statement from the arbitrator does not constitute vacatur of the original award, according to a Washington state appellate court.

In Austin v. Apollo Hair Systems of Seattle, Inc. , No. 59558-0-I, 2008 WL 130848 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2008), Austin and Apollo arbitrated a stock purchase dispute. An award was entered in favor of Austin who then petitioned the trial court to confirm the award. The trial court remanded the case to the arbitrator "for clarification of his decision." The arbitrator issued a clarification, and the trial court subsequently confirmed the award.

Apollo characterized the arbitrator's clarification as an "award on remand," and alleged that this "award on remand" was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the trial court's remand order.

The Court held that the remand order was clearly a request for clarification, and the trial court never vacated the arbitrator's original award by remanding the matter. According to the Court, the absence of vacatur precluded Apollo or the Court from holding the clarification as an untimely "award on remand."

Furthermore, the Court declined to hold that the clarification somehow supplemented or changed the original award. The Court cited prior decisions that held "a post-award clarification statement is not part of the award for purposes of vacation or modification." See, e.g., Westmark Properties, Inc. v. McGuire, 766 P.2d 1146, 1148 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).