Interesting Question

I don't think that it is an issue that has hit many appellate courts yet.

On the flabar.org website you can find a well-researched article that seems to indicate that in Florida the use of arbitration should trump the statute of limitations. In other words, it wouldn't matter if the arbitration was to be finished (or even started) after SOL had run, the court would recognize and enforce the award. Seems weird to me. And I know of cases where arbitration authorities have applied the relevant statute of limitations to toss creditors claims. Such a situation would seem to be an exercise of comity on the part of the arbitrators, with nothing binding them to do so.

Confirming an award is fundamentally different than litigating. However, that certainly wouldn't stop me from trying to fight it on the grounds that the original SOL had run. I just don't know how availing that would be.

And one would hope that the state's statute of limitations would have a catch-all provision that would put a limit of some period of years on "any other action" so that there would at least be some time period during which an award would have to be confirmed. But that's just me hoping that legislatures would be tidy, which we all know they are not. Without such a provision, one might be relegated to arguing laches against a confirmation action that came years after the award.

 

It's one of the things they're fighting over at naca.net.