Pratt v. Pratt
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00206-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00206-COA ; 2006-CA-00206-COA ; 2006-CT-00206-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-11-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property settlement agreement - Reformation - M.R.C.P. 60(a) - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(2) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-29-2005 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Vicki Barnes Disposition: CHANCERY COURT DENIED A MOTION TO REFORM THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case Number: 2001-429GN |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | WALLACE D. PRATT |
WREN CARROLL WAY |
||
| Appellee: | JOSEPHINE G. PRATT | EUGENE A. PERRIER |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Property settlement agreement - Reformation - M.R.C.P. 60(a) - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Wallace Pratt and Josephine Pratt were divorced on grounds of irreconcilable differences. The Pratts entered into a property settlement agreement that was incorporated into the divorce judgment. Wallace filed a motion to reform the property settlement agreement alleging the final agreement was formed under a mutual mistake of the parties due to a scrivener’s error in the drafting. The chancellor denied the motion. Wallace appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Wallace argues that the omission of the words “surviving spousal” are the result of scrivener’s error and a clerical mistake that warrants reformation to the agreement to reflect the understanding and intent of the parties. M.R.C.P. 60(a) provides for relief from a clerical mistake arising from oversight or omission and states that such mistake may be corrected at any time by the court’s own initiative or upon a motion of any party. M.R.C.P. 60(b)(2) provides that upon motion by a party the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment for accident or mistake but the motion must be made within a reasonable time, and not more than six months after the judgment. The power granted in Rule 60(a) cannot be utilized to change the effect of a judgment, where the changed effect is not manifest from the record that the change reflects the original intent. The language proposed by Wallace does not reflect the original intent of the parties. Therefore, the omission of the words “surviving spousal” was not a clerical mistake or scrivener’s error that would allow for reformation of the agreement. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), Wallace had six months to bring his motion for reformation. Wallace did not file his motion to reform until over two years after the judgment for divorce was entered. Wallace argues that even if the court did not have authority to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(2), that the court should reform the agreement pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). In order to be granted relief under a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, the claimant must show exceptional circumstances existed that warrant a modification and/or reformation to the judgment. Wallace argues the agreement should be reformed because of the inequity allowed for as it reads, where Josephine is designated the surviving spouse and will receive surviving spousal annuity benefits at Wallace’s death and fifty percent of Wallace’s retirement at the date of his retirement. The circumstances are not of such an exceptional nature as to warrant reformation under Rule 60(b)(6). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
