Opinion ID: 2605102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: asserted ambiguity

Text: Respondent initially contends that the original final decree of May 26, 1970 was ambiguous and should not have been amended ex parte. The original final decree in relevant part awarded custody of all four children to Petitioner and also awarded her one hundred dollars ($100) in child support. The sole change made by the judge in the amended final decree was the addition of the phrase per month after the one hundred dollar child support figure. The omission of the phrase per month was clearly a clerical mistake apparent on the face of the record. On Petitioner's timely motion this mistake was properly corrected without resort to extrinsic evidence pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure NMSA 1953, Section 21-1-1(60)(a) (Repl. Vol. 4, 1970), presently compiled as NMSA 1978, Civ.P.R. 60(a) (Repl.Pamp. 1980). Telephonic, Inc. v. Montgomery Plaza Co., 87 N.M. 407, 534 P.2d 1119 (Ct.App. 1975); see De Baca v. Sais, 44 N.M. 105, 99 P.2d 106 (1940). This simple amendment obviously did not purport to clear up any ambiguity that Respondent alleges existed regarding the exact amount of child support that was to apply to each minor child. Respondent asserts that he should have been afforded an opportunity to present parole evidence prior to modification so that the support terms could have been modified to apply to the twins only and to reflect the fact that another child had attained majority. In New Mexico, the duty of a parent to support a child continues until the child reaches the age of majority. NMSA 1978, §§ 28-6-1 and 28-6-6 (Repl.Pamp. 1983); Phelps v. Phelps, 85 NM 62, 509 P.2d 254 (1973); Coe's Estate, 56 N.M. 578, 247 P.2d 162 (1952). The well-established general rule is that an undivided support award directed at more than one child is presumed to continue in force for the full amount until the youngest child reaches majority. Annot., 2 A.L.R.3d 596 (1965). We see no compelling reason to depart from this view. Respondent's proper remedy, if indeed he thought the final decree ambiguous and/or unjust, would have been to seek prospective modification of the decree on the basis of changed circumstances. We note as to the alleged ambiguity that Respondent at no time petitioned the district court for any modification of either decree. Respondent, having failed to timely petition for possible relief from this asserted ambiguity, cannot now seize upon the mere ex parte correction of a clerical error and expand this into an inquiry regarding his interpretation of his obligations under the final decree. We conclude that the decrees were not ambiguous in their terms, and thus were enforceable.