from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Gail Hagerty, Judge.
Clifton G. Rodenburg, Amanda L. Wiebolt, and Eeva M.
Greenley, P.O. for plaintiff and appellant; submitted on
L. Livengood, defendant; no appearance.
VandeWalle, Chief Justice.
1] Mid Dakota Clinic appealed a district court's order
denying its motion to vacate a satisfaction of judgment. We
conclude the district court abused its discretion in failing
to vacate the erroneously filed satisfaction of judgment. We
2] A default judgment was entered against Sara Livengood in
December 2008. In 2012, Mid Dakota Clinic's counsel filed
a "Full Satisfaction of Judgment" with the district
court. However, this filing contained errors; the document
had Mid Dakota Clinic and Livengood's case number but
different parties listed as plaintiff and defendant. The
clerk of the district court apparently accepted the document
without cross-checking the names of the parties with the case
file number and it became part of the record in this case.
According to Mid Dakota Clinic, the satisfaction was supposed
to be filed in the listed plaintiff/defendant case, not the
numbered case and Livengood has yet to satisfy Mid Dakota
Clinic's judgment against her.
3] In 2016, Mid Dakota Clinic attempted to collect on the
judgment and discovered the satisfaction of judgment in the
record. Upon discovering the erroneous document, Mid Dakota
Clinic moved the district court to vacate it. Although
Livengood was served with a notice of the motion, she did not
respond. The district court denied the motion. Mid Dakota
Clinic moved the district court to reconsider its denial; the
district court denied the motion for reconsideration.
4] On appeal, Mid Dakota Clinic argues the district court
abused its discretion in not vacating the erroneously filed
satisfaction of judgment.
5] Mid Dakota Clinic moved to vacate the erroneous filing
under Rule 60(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil
Procedure. N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) states:
The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising
from oversight or omission whenever one 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. But after an
appeal has been docketed in the Supreme Court and while it is
pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the
Supreme Court's leave.
6] We review orders denying Rule 60(a) motions under an abuse
of discretion standard. Erickson v. Olsen, 2016 ND
33, ¶ 11, 875 N.W.2d 535. A district court "abuses
its discretion when its acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable,
or unconscionable manner, or when it misinterprets or
misapplies the law." Norberg v. Norber g, 2017
ND 14, ¶ 7, 889 N.W.2d 889 (quoting Grager v.
Schudar, 2009 ND ...