Opinion
Case No. 20040726-CA.
Filed November 12, 2004. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Timothy R. Hanson.
Ronald C. Barker, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Julene Jolley, West Valley City, Appellee Pro Se.
Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Wayne Jolley (Husband) appeals the Amended Supplemental Decree and Order, the Amended Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the trial court's denial of his objections. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition and on Husband's motion for summary reversal.
Husband asserts that the trial court's determinations of the parties' incomes and the alimony awarded to Julene Jolley (Wife) are clerical errors within Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), and should be summarily corrected. Rule 60(a) provides that "[c]lerical mistakes in judgments . . . may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party." Utah R. Civ. P. 60(a). Rule 60(a) applies only to cure errors "in accurately memorializing a judgment." In re C.S.B. 2000 UT App 362, ¶ 9, 17 P.3d 1131. Clerical error "is a type of mistake or omission mechanical in nature which is apparent on the record and which does not involve a legal decision or judgment."Stanger v. Sentinel Sec. Life Ins. Co., 669 P.2d 1201, 1206 (Utah 1983). A clerical error is one of recording "that results in the entry of a judgment which does not conform to the actual intention of the court." Thomas A. Paulsen Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 770 P.2d 125, 130 (Utah 1989). In contrast, a judicial error "is one made in rendering the judgment and results in a substantively incorrect judgment." Id.
Rule 60(a) may be used to correct judgments only "for the purpose of reflecting the actual intention of the court and the parties." Lindsay v. Atkin, 680 P.2d 401, 402 (Utah 1984). Rule 60(a) "is not intended to correct errors of a substantial nature, particularly where the claim of error is unilateral." Id. Here, Husband's claim of clerical error is unilateral, and was rejected by the trial court. The alleged error is not within the scope of rule 60(a).
Husband asserts that the error in computation is an undisputed clerical error. However, the trial court specifically rejected Husband's claim of error and his proposed figures when it denied Husband's objections. In denying Husband's objections and determining that the amounts in the order were appropriate, the trial court made a "legal decision or judgment" not within the scope of rule 60(a). See Stanger, 669 P.2d at 1206. Furthermore, the trial court clearly stated its intention that the amounts in the order as written controlled. Thus, there is no indication that the order did "not conform to the actual intention of the court." Thomas A. Paulsen Co., 770 P.2d at 130. Given the trial court's denial of Husband's objections, Husband cannot show that there is a mere clerical error in memorializing the court's judgment.
Instead, the trial court's ruling indicates that the decision was a substantive matter of how to determine alimony. This court "will not overturn a trial court's alimony award absent a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion." Griffith v. Griffith, 959 P.2d 1015, 1019 (Utah Ct.App. 1998). Husband has not argued that the trial court abused its discretion in determining alimony. As a result, he has presented no substantial question for review.
Accordingly, Husband's motion for summary reversal is denied, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge, James Z. Davis, Judge and Gregory K. Orme, Judge.