Background
The Alaska Supreme Court vacated an order granting relief from a corrected child-support record, holding that the superior court’s mistaken reference to an outdated support amount was a clerical error that could be corrected at any time under Civil Rule 60(a). But the court stopped short of deciding the ultimate arrears dispute because the record did not adequately document the Child Support Services Division’s actions or the notices provided to the parents.
CSSD originally set John Cupp’s support at $848 per month, then an administrative law judge increased it to $1,453 in 2008. During a 2013 custody modification, the superior court mistakenly described $848 as the current obligation even though it was not setting support. In 2016 CSSD treated that reference as a court order, denied a modification request, reduced the monthly assessment to $848, and credited more than $25,000 against Cupp’s arrears. Neither parent pursued review at the time.
Years later, after the children became adults and Cupp had paid the reduced balance, Tiana Mikes asked the superior court to correct the 2013 reference. The court did so, and CSSD then added more than $75,000 in arrears. Cupp obtained relief under Rule 60(b), with the superior court reasoning that Mikes had waited too long and that waiver or estoppel could apply. Mikes appealed, arguing that Rule 60(a) permits correction of a clerical mistake at any time.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court agreed that the 2013 reference was a clerical error. Rule 60(a) permits correction of mistakes arising from oversight or omission when the correction reflects the court’s actual intent. The 2013 order addressed custody, not child support, and plainly intended only to identify the existing support obligation while directing the parents to submit updated financial information. Replacing the obsolete figure with the actual then-current figure therefore conformed the written order to what the court intended.
Because Rule 60(a) expressly allows correction “at any time,” Mikes did not waive the ability to request a correction merely by waiting. The court analogized the case to an earlier Alaska decision permitting correction of a decree that misstated the support amount the parties and court had intended. The correction itself did not decide whether CSSD properly reduced or later reinstated Cupp’s arrears.
That distinction made the administrative record crucial. Cupp’s real grievance concerned CSSD’s decisions: its 2016 reduction and credit, and its later reinstatement of arrears after the court corrected the order. The appellate record lacked key notices, documentation showing who sought the 2016 change, evidence of when each parent learned of the agency’s action, and materials explaining the later reinstatement. Without those facts, the superior court could not reliably find that Mikes knowingly failed to challenge the agency or determine whether Cupp received an opportunity for administrative review. Granting Rule 60(b) relief on that incomplete record was an abuse of discretion, so the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further factfinding.
Key Takeaways
- A mistaken number in an order is correctable under Alaska Civil Rule 60(a) when the context shows that the written number did not express the court’s actual intent.
- The passage of time does not itself bar a true Rule 60(a) correction, but correcting the judicial record does not automatically resolve separate questions about an agency’s implementation.
- Rule 60(b) relief involving CSSD action requires a record showing what the agency decided, what notice it gave, when the parties learned of the decision, and what review procedures were available.
Why It Matters
Alaska family-law counsel should separate three events that can easily blur together: the court’s original intent, correction of the written order, and CSSD’s administrative response. A Rule 60(a) correction may be straightforward while the financial consequences remain contested through agency procedures or Rule 60(b). When substantial arrears turn on a historic adjustment, counsel should obtain the complete CSSD file—including petitions, notices, audit histories, service records, and appeal instructions—before asking a court for equitable relief.
The decision also cautions against findings of waiver or estoppel based on an assumed history of notice. The superior court believed Mikes had been clearly informed in 2016, but the record did not establish what she received or when she learned of the adjustment. Although unpublished and nonprecedential under Alaska Appellate Rule 214, the opinion provides a practical roadmap for building the evidentiary record needed when court error and agency administration combine to produce large retroactive support consequences.