Hill v. Hill

Under ORCP 71A. “A clerical mistake is a mistake or omission that is not a ‘deliberate result or judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.’” Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP v. Stoelk, 193 Or App 700, 707 (2004) (Quoting Hopkins and Hopkins, 102 Or App 655, 658-59, 796 (1990), rev den, 311 Or 87 (1991).)). “[A] court’s inherent authority to modify a judgment under ORCP 71 C exists only to make technical amendments, to correct trial court error, or to grant relief in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as fraud, duress, breach of fiduciary duty or gross inequity.”

In a martial dissolution case, husband appealed the trial court’s allocation of his Tier One pension with the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System after a supplemental judgment allocated part of husband’s Money Match contribution to wife’s account, contradicting the parties’ original general judgement. On appeal, husband assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to rectify the erroneous allocation and alleged abuse of discretion. Husband argued the trial court should have annulled the supplement judgment under ORCP 71 A and C due to error. In determining whether the trial court erred in its decision, the Court considered whether the supplemental judgement included a “clerical mistake” arising from an “oversight or omission” under ORCP 71A. “A clerical mistake is a mistake or omission that is not a ‘deliberate result or judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.’” Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP v. Stoelk, 193 Or App 700, 707 (2004) (Quoting Hopkins and Hopkins, 102 Or App 655, 658-59, 796 (1990), rev den, 311 Or 87 (1991).)). Furthermore, the Court considered ORCP 71C, which allows the setting aside of a judgment for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. “[A] court’s inherent authority to modify a judgment under ORCP 71 C exists only to make technical amendments, to correct trial court error, or to grant relief in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as fraud, duress, breach of fiduciary duty or gross inequity.” The Court reasoned, because husband’s counsel had approved the domestic relations order despite being aware of the Money Match issue and having opportunity to object, “[t]he supplemental judgement accurately reflected the parties’ agreement” and the husband’s claim failed to meet the criteria for mistake or omission specified in ORCP 71A. The Court also agreed with the trial court that there were no “extraordinary circumstances” present, and held that the trail court did not abuse its discretion under ORCP 71C. Therefore, the Court supported the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to set aside the judgment. Affirmed.