Opinion ID: 2139868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Nature of District Court's Original Error

Text: Defendants claim that the district court's citation to the UDTPA instead of the CPA is not a true clerical error and, therefore, that § 25-2001(3) does not permit the order nunc pro tunc. The district court itself explained that it mistakenly cited the UDTPA in its prior order through oversight. This explanation finds support in the fact that the court made the exact same mistake in the original judgment that we affirmed on the first appeal in this case. In the initial order following the first trial of this case, the district court awarded attorney fees under the CPA. However, in its order following the subsequent hearing, the court referred to a provision in the UDTPA which permits an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party. [18] Then, while the parties were submitting their briefs in the first appeal in this case, the district court issued an order nunc pro tunc declaring that the award of attorney fees was pursuant to the CPA and that the reference to the UDTPA was a clerical error. [19] A nearly identical sequence of events occurred before and during the present appeal. It seems doubtful that the district court wanted to incite another confusing sequence of events [20] by intentionally referring to the UDTPA a second time. Nor do we think it significant that the court did not specifically refer to its error as a clerical error. Such errors are defined as errors which result from a minor mistake or inadvertence especially in writing or copying something. [21] There is perhaps no better description of what transpired here than that. Accordingly, we conclude that the reference to the UDTPA in Welton's attorney fee award was the product of a clerical error and that the court had authority to change it pursuant to § 25-2001(3).