Fargo Glass and Paint Co. v. Randall
Decision Date | 14 January 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 20030196.,20030196. |
Citation | 2004 ND 4,673 N.W.2d 261 |
Parties | FARGO GLASS AND PAINT CO., Plaintiff and Appellant v. Charles C. RANDALL personally and d/b/a P-R Floor Covering Company, Defendant and Appellee. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Clifton G. Rodenburg, Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant; submitted on briefs.
Charles C. Randall, pro se, Grand Forks, N.D., defendant and appellee; submitted on briefs.
[¶ 1] Fargo Glass and Paint Company ("Fargo Glass") appealed from an order granting a motion for correction of judgment in its collection action against Charles C. Randall. We conclude the district court erred in correcting the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
[¶ 2] In January 2001, Fargo Glass sued Randall, personally and doing business as P-R Floor Covering Company, to recover $5,789.40 plus interest for the balance due for flooring and related products. Randall answered, claiming that he had neither ordered nor received certain materials and that the amount due failed to reflect credit for defective materials he did receive. In March 2001, Fargo Glass served Randall with requests for admissions, including admissions that Fargo Glass sold the materials to "P & R Floor Covering," Randall "has assumed all of the assets and liabilities of P & R Floor Covering," and that "[t]here are no facts upon which ... Randall relies as a basis for any defense in this action." In May 2001, after Randall failed to respond to the request for admissions within 30 days under N.D.R.Civ.P. 36(a), Fargo Glass moved for summary judgment based on the admissions. Randall responded to the motion with an affidavit, claiming he was owed credit on some invoices, was charged the wrong amount on others, and was owed a credit for rebate coupons. In July 2001, the district court ruled the requests for admissions were deemed admitted and granted summary judgment in favor of Fargo Glass and against "Randall personally and dba P-R Floor Covering Company" for $5,321.86 plus interest and costs.
[¶ 3] In August 2001, Randall moved for correction of the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Randall submitted an affidavit in support of the motion, in which he stated:
I affirm to the Court that I personally have never done business as "P-R Floor Covering Company." I am an officer and employee of P-R Company, Inc., a North Dakota corporation that has done business as "P-R Floor Covering Company." With regard to Plaintiff's claims in this case, P-R Company, Inc., and not me personally, incurred the debts on which Plaintiff bases its claims. Therefore, P-R Company, Inc., and not me, is the responsible Judgment debtor in this case.
In February 2002, the district court granted Randall's motion. The court concluded "the pleadings and admissions on file in this action together with the affidavits submitted in support thereof show that Defendant Randall never did business as `P-R Floor Covering Company,'" and "nowhere in the pleadings and admissions on file together with the affidavits submitted in support thereof does Plaintiff prove that Defendant executed any personal guaranty in which he assumed liability for the accounts payable of P-R Company, Inc." The court ordered the July 2001 judgment "be corrected to reflect the proper responsible party, P-R Company, Inc. and not against Defendant Charles C. Randall personally."
[¶ 4] Fargo Glass argues the district court erred in altering the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a).
[¶ 5] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), "[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversights or omission may be corrected by the court: (1) at any time on its own initiative; or (2) on the motion of any party." In First Western Bank v. Wickman, 513 N.W.2d 62, 64 (N.D.1994), we explained:
Gruebele v. Gruebele, 338 N.W.2d 805, 811-12 (N.D.1983); see also Volk v. Volk, 435 N.W.2d 690, 692 (N.D.1989)
.
[¶ 6] The district court had no authority under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to change the liable party from Randall in his personal capacity to "P-R Company, Inc." There is no "clerical mistake" in a judgment if it accurately reflects uncontroverted evidence in the proceedings. See Wickman, 513 N.W.2d at 64
. Here, the unanswered request for admissions, which were deemed admitted by the district court and served as the basis for the summary judgment, established the liable party as "Randall personally and dba P-R Floor Covering Company." Rule 60(a) cannot be used to introduce a new party to an action. The court, under the guise of correcting a clerical error, could not change the party liable for the judgment to a new and different corporate entity.
[¶ 7] The district court did not consider Randall's motion under Rule 60(b), even though the "Rule 60(a)" motion was accompanied by an affidavit raising matters that were not raised during the summary judgment proceedings. Rule 60(b) provides in part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kukla v. Kukla
...mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” In Fargo Glass and Paint Co. v. Randall, 2004 ND 4, ¶ 5, 673 N.W.2d 261, we explained our standard in applying this rule: “This Court has clearly held that Rule 60(a) is not ......
-
Carroll v. Carroll
...than the Rule 60(a) procedure, when a party seeks to change a previously entered judgment.’ " Kukla , at ¶ 12 (quoting Fargo Glass and Paint Co. v. Randall , 2004 ND 4, ¶ 7, 673 N.W.2d 261 ). [¶ 8] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a motion to vacate a judgment "lies with the ‘sound discretion of t......
-
Axtman v. Axtman
...is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with notice." In Fargo Glass & Paint Co. v. Randall , 2004 ND 4, ¶ 5, 673 N.W.2d 261 (quoting First W. Bank v. Wickman , 513 N.W.2d 62, 64 (N.D. 1994) ), we explained our standard for ap......
-
Hageness v. Davis, 20160167
...order, or other part of the record." See Kukla v. Kukla , 2013 ND 192, ¶ 11, 838 N.W.2d 434 (quoting Fargo Glass and Paint Co. v.Randall , 2004 ND 4, ¶ 5, 673 N.W.2d 261 ). [896 N.W.2d 255"The basic distinction between ‘clerical mistakes' and mistakes that cannot be corrected pursuant to Ru......