Can Utah courts correct a QDRO that contains the parties' intended but legally incorrect terms? Peck v. Peck Explained

In Peck v. Peck, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) containing legally incorrect terms could be corrected as a clerical error when it reflected the parties’ actual intent.

Background and Facts

Kevin and Reggie Peck divorced twice—first in 2003, then again in 2010 after remarrying. Their second divorce decree awarded retirement division according to Woodward v. Woodward but did not specify which marriage period applied. The QDRO signed in 2016 used the first marriage date (June 2001) rather than the second marriage date (October 2004). Kevin’s prior attorney had approved a similar QDRO form in 2010. Kevin later moved for nunc pro tunc correction, rule 60(a) clerical error relief, and rule 60(b) relief based on gross attorney negligence.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two main issues: (1) whether the incorrect marriage date in the QDRO constituted a clerical error subject to correction, and (2) whether the district court properly dismissed Kevin’s rule 60(b) motion as falling under the time-limited mistake/excusable neglect provision rather than the residuary clause.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals distinguished between clerical errors (mistakes in recording a judgment) and judicial errors (mistakes in rendering judgment). Finding that the QDRO reflected the parties’ actual intent based on the prior attorney’s approval, the court affirmed denial of the nunc pro tunc and rule 60(a) motions. However, it reversed on the rule 60(b) motion, holding the district court made insufficient findings to support dismissing the gross attorney negligence claim as falling under rule 60(b)(1) rather than the residuary clause of rule 60(b)(6).

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that QDROs reflecting parties’ actual intent, even if legally incorrect, cannot be corrected as clerical errors. For rule 60(b) motions involving attorney negligence, courts must make specific findings about whether the conduct constitutes ordinary mistake/neglect (time-barred after 90 days) or gross negligence (subject only to the “reasonable time” standard). Practitioners should carefully review QDRO terms before approval and ensure adequate briefing when challenging district court reasoning on rule 60(b) motions.