115 So. 3d 847
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Darnice and Jerry Scott married July 21, 1973; divorced December 10, 1997.
- A Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) was incorporated into the divorce judgment.
- December 1997 Order Dividing Railroad Retirement Benefits existed; Railroad Retirement Board approved January 1998.
- PSA Paragraph 23 stated Darnice would receive all Tier II benefits through the date of divorce.
- PSA Paragraph 5 and the 1997 Order conflicted: the Order awarded 100% of Tier II benefits to Darnice beyond the divorce date.
- In 2010, Jerry moved to modify the 1997 Order; the court amended Paragraph 5 under Rule 60(a) to reflect the agreement’s terms.
- Darnice appeals the Rule 60(a) amendment, arguing it was a substantive change, not a clerical correction; the appeal also challenges attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment was a clerical correction under Rule 60(a). | Darnice argues the error was substantive, not clerical. | Scott argues the amendment corrects an omission that misrepresented the Agreement. | Yes; amendment proper as clerical correction reflecting express terms. |
| Whether the amendment accurately reflects the Agreement and intent. | Darnice contends the original Order conflicted with the PSA; amendment aligns with contract. | Scott contends the Order already followed the Judgment; amendment clarifies language. | Yes; the amendment aligns the Order with the Agreement. |
| Whether the denial of attorney’s fees on appeal was proper. | Darnice seeks fees; argues error warranted relief. | Respondent argues issue moot since the first issue is resolved affirmatively. | Not reached; affirmance renders fee issue unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitney National Bank v. Smith, 613 So.2d 312 (Miss. 1993) (limits Rule 60(a) corrections to reflect original intent)
- West v. West, 891 So.2d 203 (Miss. 2004) (contractual nature of property settlements; objective interpretation)
- Palmere v. Curtis, 789 So.2d 126 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (contract interpretation steps; four corners, intent, canons, parol evidence)
- Seymour v. Seymour, 869 So.2d 1035 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (Rule 60(a) cannot change judge’s mind; may correct oversight or omission)
- East v. East, 493 So.2d 927 (Miss. 1986) (contracts and property settlements treated as contracts)
- Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So.2d 329 (Miss. 2000) (contract language governs; focus on expressed terms)
- Townsend, 859 So.2d 370 (Miss. 2003) (drafting vs. making of the contract; errors in order depend on drafting)
- Williams v. Williams, 37 So.3d 1196 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (contract interpretation using four-step process)