Opinion ID: 2268995
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sam's Motion To Correct Clerical Mistake

Text: Also in March 2008 Sam, citing Civil Rules 60(a) and 60(b)(1), moved to correct what he called a clerical mistake or error in Kathleen's QDRO (the QDRO dividing Sam's retirement payments). He contended that the court made a clerical mistake in ordering that even if Kathleen remarried, she would receive payments under her QDRO, whereas if he remarried he would receive no benefits under the QDRO dividing her pension. Kathleen's opposition argued that Sam's motion was frivolous and of no merit under either rule. She denied any error and asserted that as a matter of law her remarriage would not affect her benefits. She also argued that Sam had waived the issue, because every draft of the proposed QDRO had contained the same provision, Sam's expert had reviewed the provision, and Sam's trial objections had not addressed it. The superior court denied Sam's motion. The denial order essentially agreed with Kathleen. Sam appealed. We affirmed, because the remarriage provisions were neither a clerical error nor a mistake. [3]