Court Opinion

ID: 9602121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:51:59.007784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:43.605466
License: Public Domain

Berry, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with regard to the effective date of the confirmation order. The *930civil docket kept by the clerk, which is required by Rule 79 (a), R.C.P., is merely for the clerk to keep a record of all matters filed in any action or proceeding in his office.
The signing of an order by the judge may not be filed in the clerk’s office until sometime later and it is not effective until the clerk enters it in the civil docket, as required by Rule 58, R.C.P., and provided for by Rule 79 (a), R.C.P. The entry of the order or judgment shall not be delayed for any reason in order that its priority may be promptly established for judgment liens and other matters.
Rule 79(b) requires the clerk to keep a “civil order book” and he shall record every order and judgment in said civil order book. Rule 79(b) also requires the clerk to show in the civil order book the date the judgment or order was noted in the civil docket. If the clerk has performed his duties properly the judgment or order would not be recorded in the civil order book until after it was filed and noted in the civil docket. The judgment is the function of the judge and not the clerk. The clerk merely performs the ministerial duty of noting in the civil docket when the judgment is filed in his office. The clerk cannot intentionally or unintentionally keep a judgment of the court from being valid or effective if it is properly filed in his office and recorded. This would result in a miscarriage of justice.
If the clerk was negligent or otherwise in not noting the judgment in the civil docket as required by Rule 58 after it has been properly filed in his office, a proceeding in mandamus can be instituted to require him to perform the ministerial duty of entering the judgment in the civil docket as of the time it was filed in his office.
The fact that the confirmation order was entered in the civil order book on February 9, 1972 when it was filed in the clerk’s office conclusively shows it should have been entered in the civil docket at the time it was filed in the clerk’s office. The clerk should therefore be directed by *931mandamus, or otherwise, to perform his nondiscretionary duty to enter the judgment in the “civil order book”, as required by law in order that the judgment have proper priority.
It would therefore appear that the confirmation of sale occurred before the property was redeemed by the former property owners, and I would therefore affirm the Circuit Court of Marshall County on this matter.
I am authorized to say that Justice Neely joins, in this dissent.