Ex parte Britt
212 So. 3d 963
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- In August 2015 the Jefferson Circuit Court entered a modification judgment reducing the father's child support (retroactive to July 2014), calculating arrearage and overpayment credit, and awarding the father the dependency exemptions for the parties’ children.
- The mother filed a timely postjudgment motion (Sept. 25, 2015) arguing the court erred by retroactively modifying support to July 2014 (father’s modification suit was filed Oct. 2014) and by awarding the father dependency exemptions for all children.
- The trial court entered an order purportedly granting the mother’s motion in part on Feb. 3, 2016 — more than 90 days after the postjudgment motion (raising Rule 59.1 jurisdictional concern).
- After the father sought mandamus in this court, the trial court issued two March 23, 2016 orders: (1) setting aside the Feb. 3 order, and (2) re-entering the same relief but characterizing it as a Rule 60(a) correction of clerical errors.
- The father challenged the Rule 60(a) order as an improper substantive amendment made after the trial court had lost jurisdiction; he asked this court to set aside the Rule 60(a) order.
Issues
| Issue | Britt's Argument | Butler's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could use Rule 60(a) to erase the father’s award of dependency exemptions for the parties’ children | Rule 60(a) was improperly used to revisit a substantive issue after the 90‑day postjudgment jurisdiction lapsed; the attempted change was substantive, not clerical | Trial court recast correction as clerical under Rule 60(a) to fix an alleged jurisdictional error | Court: Trial court exceeded Rule 60(a) authority as to deleting the exemption for all children; that correction was substantive and void |
| Whether Rule 60(a) could be used to change the retroactive effective date of the child‑support modification (July 2014 → October 2014) and recalculate overpayment | Father contended the retroactive date change was improper because it reexamined an untimely postjudgment matter | Trial court characterized the date and calculation change as clerical error subject to Rule 60(a) correction | Court: Change to the retroactive month and resulting calculations were clerical and permissible under Rule 60(a); petition denied as to this point |
| Whether the trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over awarding exemptions for adult children | Father argued trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter award as to adult children | Mother argued adult children could still qualify as dependents (e.g., students under 24) and court had authority | Court: Trial court did not lack subject‑matter jurisdiction over exemptions for adult children; the attempted deletion was nonetheless a substantive reconsideration beyond Rule 60(a) |
| Appropriate remedy via mandamus | Father sought writ to set aside the Rule 60(a) order | Mother moved to dismiss after trial court set aside one order but issued the Rule 60(a) order | Court granted mandamus in part: set aside Rule 60(a) only to the extent it deleted dependency exemptions; denied relief as to clerical date/calculation corrections |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornelius v. Green, 521 So.2d 942 (Ala. 1988) (Rule 60(a) cannot be used to revisit untimely postjudgment motions or change substantive judgments)
- Cornelius v. Green, 477 So.2d 1363 (Ala. 1985) (background on untimely postjudgment motion and void amendment)
- Ex parte Brown, 963 So.2d 604 (Ala. 2007) (standards for mandamus and limits of Rule 60(a) corrections)
- Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Sealy, 374 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979) (Rule 60(a) does not permit court to render a different judgment)
- Bergen-Patterson, Inc. v. Naylor, 701 So.2d 826 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) (errors in calculation are clerical; Rule 60(a) corrects to reflect original intention)
- Michael v. Michael, 454 So.2d 1035 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984) (Rule 60(a) cannot correct errors involving judicial discretion)
- Ex parte Continental Oil Co., 370 So.2d 953 (Ala. 1979) (defining clerical mistake versus judicial decision)
- Sosebee v. Sosebee, 896 So.2d 557 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (right to claim child as tax exemption remains modifiable while exemption right exists)