JEAN LEE v. ELIZABETH LEE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

JEAN LEE,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ELIZABETH LEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________

May 12, 2014

Submitted September 25, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Grall and Accurso.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Ocean County,1 Docket

No. C-183-09.

Law Office of Bennet Lapidus, attorneys for appellant (Paul M. Cecere, on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Following our review of this partition action in which we affirmed the court's allocation of credits between the parties, the house, which had been on the market for over a year, was finally sold. As the parties were calculating the distributions required by the judgment, plaintiff's counsel discovered a mathematical error in the Chancery judge's opinion and judgment. Specifically, in totaling the credits due plaintiff as a result of defendant's personal use of the home equity line of credit, the judge failed to carry over a $40,195 item from a prior page.

Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion before the Chancery judge pursuant to Rule 1:13-1 to correct the error so that distribution could occur as the judge intended and we affirmed. At argument on the motion, the judge reviewed his written opinion with counsel and readily conceded the mistake. Defendant's counsel, however, conceded only that the numbers added up as plaintiff claimed. Not knowing "[w]hat was in [the judge's] mind," counsel refused to concede that any mistake had been made. Defense counsel further argued that any error was not a "clerical" error correctible under Rule 1:13-1, but that resort to Rule 4:50 was required. The Chancery judge issued an order correcting the error and ordering the receiver to make distribution in accordance with the correction.2 Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that the Chancery court lacked jurisdiction to correct its calculation error. She argues that the error cannot be characterized as a "clerical" error under Rule 1:13-1, and that plaintiff is well out-of-time to seek relief pursuant to Rule 4:50. We disagree.

Even careful, conscientious judges, like the learned Chancery judge who presided over this contentious family dispute, occasionally make mistakes in drafting an opinion or order. Rule 1:13-1 is designed to allow judges to correct such minor errors either on their own initiative or in response to a motion by one of the parties. The simple mathematical error that occurred here is precisely the sort of mistake for which the rule was designed. See Kiernan v. Kiernan, 355 N.J. Super. 89, 92 (App. Div. 2002) (mathematical errors); McNair v. McNair, 332 N.J. Super. 195, 199 (App. Div. 2000) (factual error in a calculation relied on by the trial court and not discovered until after appeal); Ledezma v. A & L Drywall, 254 N.J. Super. 613, 619 (App. Div. 1992) (correcting error in articulation of basis of one portion of decision).

That the prompt resolution of this simple issue was thwarted by the acrimony emblematic of the entire dispute is as unsurprising as it is unfortunate. We, nevertheless, continue to believe that "[t]he needs of litigants and the judicial system are well served by the conscientious judge who is frankly willing to acknowledge and correct error in a way that shortcuts the consumption of time, expense, and resources involved in the appellate process." Ledezma, supra, 254 N.J. Super. at 620 (citing Darel v. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass'n. Ins. Co., 114 N.J. 416, 426 (1989) ("We are confident that the world will continue to turn if judges are allowed to correct their mistakes.")). The Chancery judge acted well-within his authority in correcting the error brought to his attention at the time of the sale.

Affirmed.

1 The notice of appeal incorrectly lists Monmouth County as the trial court.

2 The Chancery judge denied plaintiff's further request that she not bear any responsibility for $2,631.70 in expenses she alleged were as a result of defendant's failure to comply with another aspect of the judge's order. That issue is not implicated in this appeal.