Opinion ID: 4527426
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Correct Clerical Error

Text: [¶9] Caouette asserts that the court erred and abused its discretion when it granted Bridges’s motion to correct the clerical error in the divorce judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(a). [¶10] “We review an order on a post-divorce motion for abuse of discretion or error of law,” Hawksley v. Gerow, 2011 ME 3, ¶ 4, 10 A.3d 715, but review the interpretation of Rules of Civil Procedure de novo, see Bean v. Cummings, 2008 ME 18, ¶ 17, 939 A.2d 676. “We look to the plain language of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine their meaning.” Id. [¶11] Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(a): Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the 6 motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. [¶12] “Rule 60(a) relief is not available, meaning that the error in question is not clerical, in order to correct a substantive error in a judgment[] or to collaterally attack a specific finding or conclusion of the court.” Waning v. Dep’t of Transp., 2008 ME 95, ¶ 10, 953 A.2d 365 (alteration omitted) (quotation marks omitted). Instead, Rule 60(a) may be invoked only when the clerical error is obvious from the face of the judgment. Cf. Williams v. Williams, 645 A.2d 1118, 1122 (Me. 1994) (holding that “inadvertently switch[ing]” figures in a divorce judgment constituted a clerical error); Matheson v. Matheson, 633 A.2d 400, 401 (Me. 1993) (holding that “a discrepancy in the court’s [divorce] judgment and findings of facts as to the amount of the defendant’s income” could be corrected pursuant to Rule 60(a)). [¶13] Here, there is a patent ambiguity in the divorce judgment. This ambiguity results from the inclusion of the term “or remarries” in paragraph 12 of the divorce judgment to describe when spousal support terminates— language that does not appear in the provision for spousal support in paragraph 9 of the judgment. Given that this patent ambiguity is more than a “clerical mistake,” the court erred by correcting the error pursuant to Rule 60(a). The error in the divorce judgment is not obvious from the four 7 corners of the document. Cf. Williams, 645 A.2d at 1122. Because there are two conflicting provisions, “a person looking at [the divorce judgment] could do no more than guess” which provision reflects the intent of the parties. Waning, 2008 ME 95, ¶ 12, 953 A.2d 365. [¶14] What the court actually did, however, in granting relief to Caouette in the form of reducing the amount of spousal support after taking the parties’ testimony and interpreting the testimony from the 2016 uncontested divorce hearing, was rule on Bridges’s motion to enforce. In doing so, the court interpreted that portion of the judgment that granted spousal support to Bridges. See id. Although we must conclude that the court should not also have granted relief pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(a), its decision to reduce the amount of support Caouette must pay effectively granted Bridges’s motion to enforce.3 [¶15] As noted above, the court held a full testimonial hearing and, after considering the evidence presented, including a transcript of the testimony they presented at the original divorce hearing, the court determined that the agreement of the parties at the time they divorced—an agreement that was adopted and ordered by the court—was that only death would automatically 3 This result is confirmed by the court’s handwritten note on the motion to enforce indicating that its May 28, 2019, action on the motion to modify rendered it unnecessary to further address Bridges’s motion to enforce. 8 end spousal support. Although the court erred in identifying its decision as a clerical correction, it is clear from the court’s judgment that it was interpreting the original divorce judgment. In so doing, it was acting to grant Bridges’s motion to enforce. [¶16] Reviewing the court’s order as a decision on the motion to enforce, we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion in the court’s findings or its judgment. The court’s order interpreting the divorce judgment is entirely supported by the record, and we affirm it here.