Court Opinion

ID: 9745222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:42:10.398153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.718647
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Judge,
concurring.
First Bank of Madison's motion was based upon Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 60(A). That rule, in relevant part, provides: "Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the trial court ..." (Emphasis added.)
What First Bank of Madison sought in the way of relief was not the correction of a clerical error arising from oversight or omission. Rather, the relief sought was a change in the substance of the judgment. This cannot be accomplished through use of a T.R. 60(A) motion. "Matters of substance must be corrected by a motion for judgment on the evidence, correction of findings or judgment or to correct errors within the time prescribed by Rules 50, 52, and 59 or as otherwise provided in the new Rules." 4 W.F. Harvey & RB. Townsend, Indiana Practice, § 60.8, at 205.
Writers commenting upon Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which our T.R. 60(A) was taken, agree that 60(a) does not furnish a vehicle for correcting errors of a substantial nature. Correction of such errors must be sought by proper motion under Rules 59(e) or 60(b). Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2854. The correction of minor errors of a clerical nature should be granted freely under Rule 60(a), but errors of a serious or substantial nature are not included within that rule. 6A, Moore's Federal Practice, § 60.06. ;
The correction sought here was of a serious and substantial nature. The proper vehicle for obtaining correction, if allowable was a motion to correct errors under Trial *83Rule 59.1 Therefore, the trial court was correct in finding the judgment contained no clerical errors subject to correction pursuant to T.R. 60(A), and to that extent, the judgment should be affirmed.
The trial court erred, however, in vacating the amended certificate of sale and awarding judgment in favor of The Bank of Versailles and against First Bank of Madison for the reason that such issue was not properly presented to the court by First Bank's TR. 60(A) motion (see discussion of proper function of TR. 60(A) motions, supra). Such material and substantial modification of the judgment could not be made. This part of the judgment must be re- , versed.
For the reasons stated, I concur.

. The case was tried on the merits. First Bank had to know of the defect within the sixty-day time limitation for filing a TR. 59 motion to correct errors, consequently the motion to correct errors was the proper method to seek correction rather than 60(B). Siebert Oxidermo, Inc. v. Shields, (1983) Ind., 446 N.E.2d 332; Snider v. Gaddis, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 322, trans. denied (1981).