WILLIAM A. SHECKLES, JR. v. TARA SHECKLES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: MARCH 23, 2007; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2006-CA-000794-MR
WILLIAM A. SHECKLES, JR.
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE ELEANORE GARBER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 01-FC-002954
TARA SHECKLES
APPELLEE
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: TAYLOR AND WINE, JUDGES; PAISLEY,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
TAYLOR, JUDGE: William Sheckles, Jr. brings this appeal from a March 14, 2006,
order of the Jefferson Family Court denying his Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.01 motion as
being untimely filed. We vacate and remand.
1
Senior Judge Lewis G. Paisley sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
21.580.
In Action No. 01-FC-002954,2 Sheckles filed a motion for modification of
child support under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.250. As grounds, Sheckles
stated that he was currently incarcerated at Northpoint Training Center with a release date
of December 6, 2019, and an early release date of December 6, 2009. The record does
not show that an order was entered in Action No. 01-FC-002954 by the Jefferson Family
Court disposing of the motion. In March 2006, Sheckles filed a motion under CR 60.01
to correct a clerical error. In the motion, Sheckles stated that he received an order from
the Jefferson Family Court entered November 19, 2004, purporting to dispose of his
motion to modify child support, but the order's heading contained an incorrect action
number and cited incorrect parties. By order entered March 9, 2006, the family court
denied Sheckles' CR 60.01 motion as being untimely filed.
Sheckles contends the family court committed error by denying his motion
under CR 60.01 to correct a clerical error. Sheckles believes that the court improperly
determined that the motion was untimely filed. Under CR 60.01, a clerical mistake in a
judgment or order may be corrected by the court at any time upon motion of a party or
sua sponte. CR 60.01 does not contain a time limitation for filing a motion thereunder.
Thus, we hold the family court committed error by denying Sheckles' CR 60.01 motion as
being untimely filed.
Although the November 19, 2004, order contained a different case number
and parties, the order seemed to dispose of Sheckles' motion for modification of child
2
Action No. 01-FC-002954 was styled “Tara L. Sheckles v. William A. Sheckles” and was
originally a dissolution of marriage proceeding.
-2-
support and recited his specific release dates in the body.3 Based upon the limited record
available to this Court, we are unable to determine whether the order was intended by the
family court to dispose of Sheckles' motion for modification of child support but was
mistakenly styled. Upon remand, we believe the family court should reconsider its ruling
and determine whether a clerical error has occurred.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Jefferson Family Court is
vacated and this cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
William A. Sheckles, Jr., Pro Se
Burgin, Kentucky
3
The style of the order attached to the Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.01 motion was “Ja-Ron S. Teague vs.
Martha R. Smith, Jefferson Family Court, Division Seven, No. 88 PF 2427.”
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
