COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Coleman and Frank 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

DAVID COLEMAN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1441-99-3 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

 APRIL 25, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 

 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, 

 DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, 

ex rel. BRENDA HUTCHERSON 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE 

William N. Alexander, Judge 

 David Coleman, pro se. 

 Ellen L. Reynolds, Special Counsel (Alice G. 

Burlinson, Regional Special Counsel; Mark L. 

Earley, Attorney General; Ashley L. Taylor, 

Jr., Deputy Attorney General; Robert B. 

Cousins, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney 

General; Craig M. Burshem, Regional Special 

Counsel, on brief), for appellee. 

 David Coleman appeals the circuit court order modifying his 

child support obligation and ordering him to pay an arrearage of 

$1,094.70 and interest as of April 30, 1999. On appeal, Coleman 

argues that the trial court erred in ordering that he pay the 

arrearage because the record does not contain any evidence to 

support a finding that such an arrearage was owed. At oral 

argument, counsel for the Department of Social Services (DSS) 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 - 

conceded that the record contains no pleadings or evidence to 

support the provision in the trial court's order of May 24, 1999, 

or the nunc pro tunc order of August 10, 1999,1 setting a child 

support arrearage of $1,094.70. Accordingly, we reverse the trial 

court as to the award of arrearage and remand the matter to the 

trial court with directions to vacate that provision of the 

court's prior orders without prejudice to Brenda Hutcherson or DSS 

as to any claims of arrearage. 

 Coleman further argued that the trial court erred by vacating 

the May 24, 1999 order and entering an order nunc pro tunc after 

twenty-one days. Coleman argued that, because the court could not 

enter an order after twenty-one days, the juvenile and domestic 

relations district court order setting child support at $298.58 

per month would be the final controlling support order. However, 

because that order was appealed to the circuit court and was a 

nullity, the last effective order, if Coleman's argument had 

merit, would have been the prior child support order of $355 per 

month. In addition, a nunc pro tunc order correcting a clerical 

error can be entered after twenty-one days from entry of the final 

order without violating Rule 1:1. A trial court may enter an 

order nunc pro tunc to reflect judicial action that was, in 

 1

 The nunc pro tunc order is part of the appendix and was 

referenced in the briefs and at oral argument by both parties 

but was not sent to this Court as a part of the trial court 

record. 
- 3 - 

fact, taken or to correct defects or omissions in the record so 

as to make the record conform to actual prior events. See Code 

§ 8.01-428(B). Code § 8.01-428(B) authorizes a trial judge to 

correct the judge's own errors and omissions. See Nelson v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 835, 837-38, 407 S.E.2d 326, 327-28 

(1991); see also Dorn v. Dorn, 222 Va. 288, 291, 279 S.E.2d 393, 

394-95 (1981). 

 The trial court did not err in entering the order nunc pro

tunc to correct the clerical error reflected in the amount of 

the support obligation. At oral argument, appellant requested 

and acquiesced in the trial court's determination of child 

support in the amount of $337.05 effective August 18, 1998. 

 Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's award of child 

support arrearage and remand with directions to the trial court 

to vacate that award, without prejudice, and we affirm the trial 

court's child support modification. 

 Reversed and remanded, in

 part, and affirmed, in part.