Motion to Correct Clerical Error in California Judgment

A motion to correct a clerical error in a California judgment is the subject of this article. Correcting a clerical error in a judgment entered in California requires the filing of a motion to amend the judgment in California to correct a clerical error under the provisions of section 473(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This procedure is used to correct oversights or errors in the judgment record. However, it should be noted that it cannot be used to challenge the terms of the sentence. The motion may also request that the judgment be amended nunc pro tunc from the date the original judgment was entered.

A motion to amend a California judgment is filed to correct a clerical error on the grounds that the recorded terms of the judgment do not agree with the result stated when the judgment was initially entered. This motion is a very limited tool as it is authorized to be used only to correct clerical errors.

However, the trial court has very broad discretion in classifying such errors as an omission or error in judgment; an erroneous description in a sentence, inadvertence in signing a faulty sentence and an ambiguity in a sentence.

The characterization of a sentencing error as administrative rather than judicial is critical, since an administrative error can be corrected at any time, sua sponte by the court or at the request of one of the parties, even years or decades after it has occurred. case closed. . But a miscarriage of justice can only be corrected in a motion for a new trial or a motion to vacate and enter a new sentence.

Therefore, the party seeking to persuade the court that the error was merely administrative must be very careful and aware of how to properly characterize the error, and must be certain that the error is in fact administrative and not judicial.

However, it should also be noted that there are many instances in the California Supreme Court and California Courts of Appeals that have ruled that an omission or error in a sentence has been characterized as a clerical error. These instances include:

An omission in the determination of an account and decree of distribution that involves the succession of an estate;

Failure to include an order that one party pay the other party’s attorney and accountant fees when entering a judgment, and

The lack of a judgment to clearly name the defendants and to establish their liability to the plaintiff.

The California Supreme Court stated in a case decided more than 75 years ago that California courts have the power to correct clerical errors in their sentences at any time, regardless of how long it has been since the error was made or the decision was made. judgment. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a hearing and resulting nunc pro tunc order correcting a clerical error in a final distribution decree of an estate 35 years after original entry was valid.

The California Supreme Court also stated in a case decided more than 40 years ago that all courts have the inherent power to enter an order to enter judgment nunc pro tunc All courts have the inherent power to enter orders to enter judgment nunc pro tunc so that the sentence will be effective from the date on which it is actually registered.

Used in the right situations, a motion to amend a judgment to correct a clerical error can allow the plaintiff to correct a clerical error in a judgment, even if years or decades have passed since the date of the original judgment or decree. But the motion should only be used in the right situations when the error is clearly a clerical error and not a judicial error.