Opinion ID: 1172041
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Nunc pro tunc clarification and correction of the April 3, 1984 and July 11, 1984 orders and the August 31, 1984 judgment

Text: Because the record of the trial court proceedings was in dispute and fraught with ambiguities, [2] we authorized the mother to seek clarification by correction nunc pro tunc in a proceeding ordered to be conducted by the trial judge as this court's special master. The trial judge's authority to act was limited to matters contained in our October 24, 1984 order. [3] We sought to have him determine whether the writ had in fact been granted on April 3, 1984 and later withdrawn by the July 11, 1984 order. After a hearing, the trial court clarified the record by finding that its April 3, 1984 writ had not been modified by the later July 11, 1984 ruling. There is nothing on this record to indicate error in the trial judge's nunc pro tunc findings. No contention is advanced by either party that the correction order is contrary to the proof adduced at the special master's hearing. The findings are clearly supported by the record entry of the writ's issuance, and the special master's ruling that the writ had not been withdrawn also stands uncontradicted either by the record or by testimony. In short, the record viewed in its entirety leaves us free from doubt that the writ had been issued on April 3, 1984 and remained undisturbed by the trial court's July 11, 1984 order. While legal soundness of a trial judge's mid-appeal nunc pro tunc record correction ordered by this court is open to challenge either on motion or by an amended petition-in-error, [4] neither party here has sought corrective relief from the special master's findings. There is hence no contest about its validity or correctness.