Kukla v. Kukla
2013 ND 192
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Divorce 2004 with oral stipulation dividing property; mineral acres to be divided equally but not mentioned in 2004 judgment.
- Quitclaim deed conveyed farm property to Wayne without mineral reservations.
- Bobbi moved in 2012 under Rule 60 to amend to reflect mineral division; eight years after judgment.
- District court found error, amended judgment to grant Bobbi 1/2 of all mineral interests and ordered Wayne to account for income.
- Appellant Wayne challenged the amendment as improper under Rule 60(a) and 60(b); Supreme Court granted amicus review and reversed.
- Court reinstated the original 2004 divorce judgment, concluding the amendment improperly changed substantive rights under Rule 60(a) and timing/necessity issues under Rule 60(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(a) allows correction of omission in judgment. | Kukla (Bobbi) argues omission reflected a clerical error. | Kukla (Wayne) asserts no omission; 60(a) not applicable. | No; 60(a) cannot alter substantive terms; error not clerical. |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was timely and extraordinary. | Bobbi sought relief within a reasonable time after discovery. | Too late; eight years passed; no extraordinary circumstances shown. | Motion not timely; 60(b) relief improper. |
| Whether amendment violated finality by changing the judgment's substance. | Amendment corrected an omission to reflect agreement. | Amendment altered property rights and was beyond 60(a). | Amendment improper; judgment reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fargo Glass & Paint Co. v. Randall, 2004 ND 4 (ND 2004) (Rule 60(a) correction not substitute for merits; intended to reflect court’s intent)
- Roth v. Hoffer, 2006 ND 119 (ND 2006) (Distinguishes clerical vs. substantive mistakes under Rule 60(a))
- Gruebele v. Gruebele, 338 N.W.2d 805 (ND 1983) (Clerical corrections allowed for omissions reflecting original intent)
- Slorby v. Slorby, 2009 ND 11 (ND 2009) (Judgment interpretation; extrinsic evidence if ambiguity)
- Sullivan v. Quist, 506 N.W.2d 394 (ND 1993) (Judgments merge settlement terms; interpretation at decree level)
- Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P. v. Lario Oil & Gas Co., 2011 ND 154 (ND 2011) (Timeliness and extraordinary circumstances under 60(b))