Utah Court of Appeals
Does correcting a clerical error restart the appeal deadline? Hansen v. Kik Explained
Summary
Greg Hansen appealed a trial court’s enforcement of a divorce decree requiring payment to his ex-wife. The trial court initially issued an order with a clerical error awarding judgment to the wrong party, then corrected the error under Rule 60(a). Hansen filed his notice of appeal after the correction, arguing the amendment restarted the appeal deadline.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Hansen v. Kik, Greg Hansen sought to appeal a trial court’s enforcement of a 1994 divorce decree requiring him to pay his ex-wife $4,000 for mobile home equity and $6,855 for personal property. The trial court initially issued an order on November 16, 2004, but the order contained a clerical error—it awarded judgment for the personal property to “Petitioner” instead of “Respondent.” The ex-wife moved to correct this error under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), and the trial court issued an amended order on May 5, 2005, making the correction retroactive to the original order date.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Hansen’s notice of appeal, filed on May 18, 2005, was timely. Hansen argued that the trial court’s amendment materially changed the order’s substance, restarting the 30-day appeal deadline under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). The ex-wife contended that the correction was merely clerical and related back to the original November 16, 2004 order date, making the appeal untimely.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals applied the established distinction between clerical and material modifications. Clerical corrections under Rule 60(a) relate back to the original judgment date and do not restart the appeal clock, while material amendments reset the deadline. The court determined that correcting the party designation was purely clerical because it made the order internally consistent and aligned with the trial court’s actual intent as reflected in the minute entry. The modification did not change the “substance or character” of the judgment.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that practitioners must file appeals within 30 days of the original order, even when expecting clerical corrections. Courts will strictly enforce jurisdictional deadlines and dismiss untimely appeals regardless of subsequent administrative corrections. The case also clarifies that Rule 60(a) corrections that simply fix obvious errors without changing substantive outcomes will not provide additional time to appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
Hansen v. Kik
Citation
2006 UT App 314
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20050464-CA
Date Decided
July 28, 2006
Outcome
Dismissed
Holding
A trial court’s correction of a clerical error under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) that makes an order internally consistent does not restart the time for filing a notice of appeal.
Standard of Review
Not reached due to jurisdictional defect
Practice Tip
File your notice of appeal within 30 days of the original order, even if the court later corrects clerical errors under Rule 60(a), as such corrections relate back to the original order date.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.