Opinion ID: 1133460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Amended Judgment

Text: Finally, R.C.R., Inc. raises a procedural argument, averring that the court acted outside its authority when it amended the original judgment after the end of a court term. [5] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-16-401(a) (Michie 1997) sets out the circumstances under which a judgment can be modified after the end of a term, and we agree that none of those circumstances fit the facts of this case. However, in Spomer v. Spomer, 580 P.2d 1146, 1148 (Wyo.1978), this court held that W.R.C.P. 60(a) eliminates the requirement that motions to correct clerical errors be made within the court term. Therefore, the key question is whether the error for which the Hills sought relief in their motion to alter or amend was properly classified as a clerical error which was subject to correction after the end of the term in which the judgment was entered. Rule 60(a) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part: (a) Clerical mistakes. 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 motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. Rule 60(a) is intended to correct clerical, not judicial errors. Spomer, 580 P.2d at 1148-49. A clerical error is a mistake or omission of a mechanical nature, apparent on the face of the record, that prevents the judgment as entered from accurately reflecting the judgment that was rendered. Id. at 1149; Matter of Kimball's Estate, 583 P.2d 1274, 1278 (Wyo.1978). [T]he central purpose of Rule 60(a) is to effectuate the contemporaneous intent of the court and to ensure that the judgment reflects that intent. Spomer, 580 P.2d at 1149. Rule 60(a) is designed to clarify as well as to correct, and is properly invoked to dispel either patent or latent ambiguities in a judgment. Id. In their Rule 60(a) motion, the Hills pointed out that the map attached to the original judgment, Exhibit 33, did not depict the southern part of Mr. Horst's property or the county road. Therefore, the judgment did not locate the entire Hill easement which, by its terms, provides access from the county road to the Hill property. The Hills offered a substitute map, Exhibit A, which included the county road and all of Mr. Horst's property. Historically, the Hills and the other plaintiffs in this case did not enter the Platt property from the county road. Rather, they turned north from the county road onto property directly to the east of the Platt tract and traveled about a quarter mile before turning west, crossing a cattle guard and entering the Platt tract (now owned by Mr. Horst) on the purple road. Nevertheless, the new map, Exhibit A, depicted a road marked as Gray's New Road, which turned north from the county road onto Mr. Horst's property and then tied into the purple road. [6] Mr. Gray testified that when he first bought the north 90 acres from Mr. Platt, he obtained a written access easement from the county road to the existing access road used by the Hills and built Gray's New Road. In its amended judgment, the court recognized that the Hill easement clearly and unambiguously provided for an access easement from the county road to the Hills' Rainbow Canyon property, and that to force the Hills to traverse the adjoining property would run counter to the clear language of the easement. The court noted the defendants did not allege that the southern portion of the easement had been abandoned or otherwise relinquished or waived by the Hills due to nonuse. The court additionally noted that testimony presented during the trial established the fact that Gray's New Road provided access from the county road to the purple road. The court accordingly altered the fixed location of the Hill access road to include Gray's New Road; so, instead of entering Mr. Horst's property from the east, it enters his property from the county road, travels north, and connects with the purple road. After carefully reviewing the record, we believe the district court acted properly. The original judgment was patently ambiguous. It purported to validate the Hill easement, which on its face grants access from the county road to the Hill property, yet the map introduced at trial and attached to the judgment did not reflect the entire servient estate. We do not perceive the omission in the original judgment as reflecting a deliberate choice on the part of the court, which would appropriately be cured by an appeal. The court appropriately modified the earlier judgment so it would be in conformance with the intent expressed therein: to fix the location of the Hills' access easement from the county road to their property. We hold the court did not act outside its authority when it amended the original judgment to clarify and correct a patent ambiguity. The amended judgment is, therefore, affirmed.