Summary 2006 WY 93

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Wyland v. Wyland

Citation: 2006 WY 93

Docket Number: 05-184

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Thomas Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Ronald G. Pretty of Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Donald A. Cole of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: July 28, 2006

Issues: Whether the district court had authority to enter an Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) with which to effectuate the parties' agreement as to the payment of retirement funds.

Holdings: It is generally correct that once a district court enters a judgment to that effect that a spouse is to receive a portion of military retirement benefits as part of the marital property divisible upon divorce, it does not then retain the jurisdiction to modify its marital property division based upon a change of circumstances. However, W.R.Civ.P. 60(a) allows a court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission. Two factors are considered in reviewing the application of this rule: (1) whether the clarification of a judgment relates to a "clerical mistake"; and if so, (2) whether the order at issue "clarified or modified the original judgment." A clerical error is a mistake or omission of a mechanical nature apparent on the face of the record that prevents the judgment as entered from accurately reflecting the judgment that was rendered. In addition, W.R.C.P. 60(a) is designed to clarify, as well as to correct, and is properly invoked to dispel either patent or latent ambiguities in a judgment. In other words, a district court retains the authority, pursuant to Rule 60(a), to clarify an ambiguous property settlement provision provided in an original decree in order to effectuate the provision.

In the present action, Appellee clearly sought to clarify and effectuate the divorce decree provision regarding Appellant's military retirement benefits so that it met the statutory requirements of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (2006). The United States Air Force was apparently unable to divide Appellant's retirement benefits pursuant to the divorce decree without further guidance. Juxtaposition of the divorce decree, the first amended QDRO, and the second amended QDRO reveals that the divorce decree was ambiguous as to precisely how Appellee's share of such benefits was to be calculated and required a formula, as well as some additional language and personal information, in order to effectuate the division of benefits. The divorce decree obviously needed to be clarified in that regard, and at such a clarification relates to a "clerical mistake" for purposes of Rule 60(a). Additionally the second amended QDRO did not amend the divorce decree in the instant case. The divorce decree essentially provided that Appellee was to receive her portion of Appellant's retirement benefits as such benefits became payable. Based on a review of the record, the only meaningful substantive difference between the divorce decree and the second amended QDRO is the formula used to calculate Appellee's share of the benefits. Appellant does not claim on appeal that this formula is contrary to, or inconsistent with, the divorce decree. It remains unclear from Appellant's argument how any of the other language or information contained in the second amended QDRO (presumably included to meet the requirements of the USFSPA) otherwise modified the divorce decree. Accordingly, that the circuit court judge did not err in entering the second amended QDRO.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.