Mac Industries v. Peterson IIAnnotate this Case
Mac Industries, a Utah corporation,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
William D. Peterson II,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20010177-CA
F I L E D
May 24, 2001 2001 UT App 170 -----
Third District, Salt Lake
The Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki
William D. Peterson II, Holladay, Appellant Pro Se
George B. Handy, Ogden, for Appellee
Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis.
Appellant William D. Peterson II appeals the trial court's order denying his "Motion/Petition to Correct Clerical Error Per U.R.C.P. 60(a)." We affirm.
On June 25, 1992, the trial court set aside a judgment entered in favor of Peterson because it was based on the mistaken belief that appellee had not answered Peterson's request for admissions. On July 19, 1993, the trial court entered judgment against Peterson. Seven years later, in a misguided effort to have judgment entered in his favor, Peterson filed a motion to correct clerical error by which he asked the trial court to remove from the file appellee's motion to set aside default judgment and all documents relying upon it. The trial court denied Peterson's motion concluding that he was misapplying Rule 60(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and, even if the rule applied, Peterson's motion was filed several years too late. The trial court also noted that Peterson's motion was another in a series of frivolous filings made in Third District Court, the Utah Court of Appeals, the Utah Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the State of Utah, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. The trial court awarded attorney fees to appellee's counsel for having to respond to Peterson's latest "meritless and unnecessary motion."
Peterson is under the misconception that he can have a mistakenly-entered 1992 judgment reinstated by asking that documents objecting to and overruling it be removed from the file. There is no rule of law that allows this. Rule 60(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure is meant to correct clerical errors, not as a vehicle to have pleadings removed from the file and to overturn validly entered orders, such as the July 19, 1993 judgment against Peterson. We agree with the trial court that Peterson's motion is a misapplication of Rule 60(a) and that his claims are frivolous.
The trial court's order denying
Peterson's motion to remove documents from the file and awarding attorney
fees is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the purpose
of determining the amount of costs and attorney fees incurred by appellee
in defending this appeal. Peterson shall be required to pay those costs
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
Judith M. Billings, Judge
James Z. Davis, Judge