Opinion ID: 2395786
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: clarification of the injunctive relief

Text: [¶ 10] Fitzgerald contends that the court erred when it amended the December 1993 order to convey Lot 1 rather than approximately one-half of Lot 14. The trial court has the inherent and continuing authority to construe and clarify its judgment when that judgment is ambiguous. MacDonald v. MacDonald, 582 A.2d 976, 977 (Me.1990). To determine whether the trial court properly exercised its authority we must determine (1) whether the court's prior judgment was ambiguous as a matter of law; and (2) whether the court's construction of its prior judgment is consistent with its language read as a whole and is objectively supported by the record. Id. (citations omitted); see also Murphy v. Murphy, 1997 ME 103, ¶ 8, 694 A.2d 932, 934. [¶ 11] The court properly exercised its authority to clarify the award of injunctive relief. The December 13, 1993, judgment ordered the sellers to convey approximately one-half of Lot 14. The term approximately is the essence of ambiguity. The record supports the court's clarification of this ambiguous language. The plan attached to Fitzgerald's original complaint shows Lot 14 divided into two lots. The dimensions of the lots are essentially the same as those in Webber's subdivision of Lot 14. The court clarified its judgment to award Fitzgerald Lot 1 in Webber's subdivision. Given that the court awarded Fitzgerald essentially what she requested in her complaint, the court did not err in its clarification of the 1993 judgment.