Opinion ID: 2112519
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defendant's Cross-Appeal: Location of the Easement to the Shore

Text: It is obvious from this record that the trial Court's findings of fact entered on January 21, 1977 mistakenly stated that Mona Powell's right of way to the seashore was located on the property owned by her co-plaintiffs, Edward and Helena Davis, while, in his conclusions of law entered on the same date, the trial Justice placed this same shore easement on the defendant Bruk's property. This inconsistency was brought to the Court's attention by the defendant, who filed a motion to amend the conclusions of law so that they would conform to the findings of fact and the easement be located on the Davises' property. Instead, the trial Justice responded by amending the findings of fact so as to locate the easement on the defendant's property. The defendant contends that the trial Court had no authority to amend the findings of fact, since no party had made a motion requesting such an amendment. Rule 52(b), M.R.Civ.P. provides for the amendment of findings of fact upon motion of a party. It is true that this rule does not mention any power of the court to amend findings of fact on its own initiative. Rule 60(a), M.R.Civ.P., however, permits the correction of clerical mistakes on the court's own motion. [8] Where the trial justice simply makes a slip of the tongue and uses the name of one party where he meant to use the name of another party, Rule 60(a) empowers him to correct his own mistake on his own initiative. See Kelley v. Bank Building and Equipment Corp. of Amer., 10th Cir., 453 F.2d 774, 778 (1972); State of North Carolina v. Carr, D.C., 264 F.Supp. 75, app. dismissed 386 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1967); Reinstine v. Rosenfield, 7th Cir., 111 F.2d 892 (1940); 6A Moore's Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 60.06(2), at p. 4057. Accordingly, we must reject the defendant's contention that the trial Court erred in amending the findings of fact with reference to the location of the Powell shore easement. The entry will be: Plaintiffs' appeal is sustained in part and denied in part. Defendant's appeal is denied. That portion of the judgment which permits relocation of the right of way to the Town Road is vacated. In all other respects, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. Costs on appeal allowed to neither party. POMEROY, J., sat at oral argument and participated in conference, but retired prior to the preparation of the opinion. WERNICK, J., did not sit. ARCHIBALD and DELAHANTY, JJ., sat at oral argument and participated in conference. They retired prior to the preparation of the opinion, but have joined therein as Active Retired Justices.