Erickson v. Olsen, 875 N.W.2d 535

Clarence Erickson died in Dec. 2010. His biological son Curtis sued to rescind property transfers to stepchildren/appellants and to invalidate Clarence’s Sept. 2010 will.
After a bench trial the district court found undue influence and lack of capacity, invalidated the will and certain real and personal property transfers, and denied the appellants’ Rule 52(b) motion to amend findings.
Appellants moved under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to require repayment of purchase prices for invalidated real-property transfers; they appealed the initial judgment before the district court ruled on that motion.
On temporary remand the district court granted appellants’ Rule 60(a) motion and entered an amended judgment reimbursing appellants for consideration paid; Curtis filed renewed Rule 60(a) and discovery motions seeking further restitution (fees, mineral payments, rental value, etc.).
The court initially allowed discovery, then vacated that order, but later granted Curtis’s renewed Rule 60(a) motion and entered a second amended judgment requiring appellants to reimburse the estate for closing/transfer fees, mineral payments, and reasonable rental value — without evidence of amounts in the original trial record.
The Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion by using Rule 60(a) to grant substantive relief beyond clerical corrections, reversed the second amended judgment, and reinstated the amended judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(a) permitted the district court to amend the judgment to award additional restitution (fees, mineral payments, rental value) based on matters not in the trial record	Curtis: amendments merely correct oversight to effectuate the court’s original intent to restore parties to pre-transfer positions	Appellants: Rule 60(a) cannot be used to add substantive relief not decided at trial; such relief requires evidence and proper procedure	Court: Rule 60(a) is limited to clerical/oversight corrections; the amendments imposed substantive relief not supported by the trial record, so relief under Rule 60(a) was improper
Whether res judicata or law-of-the-case barred relitigation of additional restitution issues after appeal/remand	Curtis: on remand court could fully address counterclaims and correct judgment to reflect original intent	Appellants: issues already litigated/decided; additional remedies require new evidence and proper procedures	Court: doctrine and precedent preclude using Rule 60(a) to relitigate or substantively change judgment; additional relief required evidence and would be substantive, so not allowed under Rule 60(a)

Kukla v. Kukla, 838 N.W.2d 434 (N.D. 2013) (explaining limits of Rule 60(a) and that it is not a substitute for merits appeal)
Roth v. Hoffer, 715 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 2006) (Rule 60(a) permits corrections for ambiguities or omissions that clarify court’s original intent)
Gruebele v. Gruebele, 338 N.W.2d 805 (N.D. 1983) (Rule 60(a) may correct oversight but cannot relitigate decided matters)
Fargo Glass & Paint Co. v. Randall, 673 N.W.2d 261 (N.D. 2004) (preference for Rule 60(b) over Rule 60(a) when party seeks substantive relief)
Moch v. Moch, 578 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1998) (law-of-the-case and limits on raising issues on remand that were not cross-appealed)