Clark v. Ingram
| Decision Date | 29 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 57524,57524 |
| Parties | CLARK v. INGRAM. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lee Payne, Atlanta, for appellant.
Vaughn & Barksdale, A. R. Barksdale, F. Jack Lance, Conyers, for appellee.
On the 22nd day of May, 1978 following an action for temporary and permanent support of a minor child the defendant father was ordered to pay the sum of $500 for hospital and doctor bills involved in the birth of the child and also "pay the Plaintiff the amount of $15.00 per week for the support of the child from the date of birth of May 27, 1974, until the child reaches the age of 18, marries or becomes self-supporting, whichever occurs first, or dies." The May and August terms of the superior court then passed and on the 29th of November, 1978, the trial court in an ex parte order, determined that the order of May 22, 1978, "is in error" in that the judgment is amended "by changing the date at which the child support payments are to commence from May 27, 1974 to May 22, 1978." The court then redrew the final judgment so that the language "from the date of birth of May 27, 1974," was changed to "from the date of this judgment, May 22, 1978," and further ordered that The plaintiff appeals. Held:
1. A trial court has inherent power to modify its own judgment during the term at which it was rendered, and this power may be exercised on the court's own motion with or without notice to the parties. City of Cornelia v. Gunter, 227 Ga. 464, 181 S.E.2d 489; Ammons v. Bolick, 233 Ga. 324, 210 S.E.2d 796; C. & S. Nat. Bank v. Burden, 145 Ga.App. 402, 403(1), 244 S.E.2d 244 and cits.
2. However, at a succeeding term, "a trial court has only such power to modify its judgment as may be given by statute." See Cagle v. Dixon, 234 Ga. 698, 217 S.E.2d 598.
3. Under Code Ann. § 81A-160(g) () clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record, "and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders." Of course, clerical errors from any accident, slip or omission, may, at any time be corrected by the court. See Fisher v. Great American Mgt. & Invest., 145 Ga.App. 394, 396, 243 S.E.2d 588. In the case sub judice the trial court's corrective order refers to "error" but not necessarily to clerical mistakes or errors "therein arising from oversight or omission." Code Ann. § 81A-160(g), Supra.
In Smith v. Smith, 230 Ga. 238, 196 S.E.2d 437, the Supreme Court held that the words "per child" were shown to have been omitted but intended by the parties to be in the judgment, and the trial court had authority to correct the judgment. However, it further stated that as to a correction of a judgment done by the court of its own initiative, it must be "obvious that it is ordinarily to be used where the clerical error or omission is obvious on the face of the record." That case was followed in Park v. Park, 233 Ga. 36, 209 S.E.2d 584, wherein a paragraph permitting modification of alimony could be added to an alimony judgment by motion wherein it was shown at a hearing on the motion that the paragraph had been omitted by clerical error. Thereafter the Supreme Court in Cagle v. Dixon, 234 Ga. 698, 700, 217 S.E.2d 598, 600, Supra, noted that in both Smith v. Smith, 230 Ga. 238, 196 S.E.2d 437, Supra, and Park v. Park, 233 Ga. 36, 209 S.E.2d 584, Supra, that these cases were exceptions to the general principle "where there has been a hearing on a motion to correct the judgment, and the evidence compels the conclusion that the omission was in fact a clerical error." However, that court in Cagle v. Dixon, supra, held that in that case it "involves an ex parte amendment to a judgment and not an amendment made after notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hubbert v. Williams, s. 70098
...DEEN, P.J., and POPE, J., concur. 1 See Cooley v. All The World, 247 Ga. 459, 460(2), 276 S.E.2d 615 (1981); Clark v. Ingram, 150 Ga.App. 127, 128(3), 257 S.E.2d 33 (1979).2 Siegel later filed a motion to set aside another part of the June 6 judgment, on other grounds. The court denied that......
- Hudson v. State, 57480
-
Andrew L. Parks, Inc. v. SunTrust Bank
...filed within the same term of court. Piggly Wiggly Southern v. McCook, 216 Ga.App. 335,, 454 S.E.2d 203 (1995); Clark v. Ingram, 150 Ga.App. 127, 128(1), 257 S.E.2d 33 (1979). Here, no motion was filed within the same term of court. Therefore, the trial court's authority to vacate its first......
-
Jennings v. Messman
...Bolick, 233 Ga. 324, 210 S.E.2d 796; C. & S. Nat. Bank v. Burden, 145 Ga.App. 402, 403(1), 244 S.E.2d 244 and cits." Clark v. Ingram, 150 Ga.App. 127, 128(1), 257 S.E.2d 33. Having the power to modify the judgment on the court's own motion (without motion of either party) the court had the ......