An ambiguous decree which stated in one place that wife's alimony would end upon her remarriage, and in another place that it would end upon husband's remarriage, was ambiguous enough to deserve correction of this conflict as a "clerical error," nunc pro tunc, the Court of Appeals found in White v. White, 17 VLW 48 (6/11/02).
The odd provision was in the §20-60.3 paragraphs and amounted to a scrivener's error. It contradicted the Commissioner's Report as well as two other decree provisions, and constituted an irreconcilable inconsistency. The document contained no explanation of why the parties and the judge might have intended such inconsistent wording and there was no evidence of how it could be enforceable. The trial court finding of a correctable error was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was affirmed. Perhaps the most interesting issue was raised by the husband's representation that he has remarried in detrimental reliance upon the original decree, but that is an equitable consideration which goes only so far. Nor did the application of the proper statutory remedy deprive the husband of property without due process.