CourtListener opinion 10843388

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
 STATE OF FLORIDA
 _____________________________

 Case No. 5D2024-2111
 LT Case No. 2021-DR-000146
 _____________________________

KARL TUCKER,

 Appellant,

 v.

JAMMIE TUCKER n/k/a JAMMIE
RENAE LANCASTER,

 Appellee.
 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County.
Michelle T. Morley, Judge.

Raymond S. Dietrich, of Raymond S. Dietrich, PLC, Phoenix,
Arizona, for Appellant.

Alyssa Vinson and A.J. Rohe, III, of Rohe Law, Tavares, for
Appellee.

 April 11, 2025

EDWARDS, C.J.

 Karl Tucker ("Former Husband"), appeals the trial court's
Order On Former Wife's (Jammie Tucker), Amended Motion To
Correct Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("Corrective Order").
The Corrective Order, rendered in 2024, relied upon Florida
Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(a), and purported to correct
 a clerical mistake in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order
("QDRO") entered in 2021. Former Husband argues that the
Corrective Order did not address a clerical mistake but instead
made a substantive change to the 2021 QDRO; thus, making Rule
12.540(b), with its one-year time limit to seek relief, applicable.
We agree, quash the Corrective Order, and remand for further
proceedings.

 Background

 The parties' marriage was dissolved by a final judgment
entered on May 28, 2021, which incorporated their Marital
Settlement Agreement ("MSA"), dated March 19, 2021, that settled
all issues between them.1 In accordance with the MSA, the final
judgment provided in part that Former Wife would receive one-
half of the marital portion of Former Husband's Florida
Retirement System ("FRS") Pension Plan benefits which were to
be transferred to her via a QDRO. The final judgment directed
Former Husband to retain someone, at his expense, to prepare the
QDRO. Former Husband, who was pro se up to this point in the
dissolution, retained attorney Raymond Dietrich to carry out that
task. Former Wife was represented by her current law firm during
the dissolution, but prior to preparation and entry of the QDRO,
her counsel filed a conclusion of representation, leaving her pro se.

 The 2021 QDRO

 Mr. Dietrich's office sent a draft of the QDRO to Former
Husband and also to Former Wife, who was pro se at that time.
Both parties reviewed the draft QDRO and on September 20, 2021,
both literally signed off on the draft beneath the statement,
"AGREED TO AS TO FORM AND CONTENT."2 The final
judgment reflected that the trial court retained jurisdiction to
enforce, construe, and interpret the terms of the MSA and final

 1 Indeed, the parties waived appearance at any final hearing

based on having resolved every issue in the MSA.
 2 Former Wife claimed that she did not actually read over the

draft QDRO at that time due to being hurried by Former Husband.

 2
 judgment, and for entry of relevant orders.3 After the approved
version was submitted, the trial court entered the QDRO on
October 11, 2021, with a notation on the QDRO that copies had
been furnished to the parties and to the plan administrator for
FRS. Paragraph 6 of the QDRO provided in part that Former Wife
"is not entitled to Deferred Retirement Option Program ("DROP")
benefits." 4

 On April 11, 2024, Former Wife, through counsel, filed her
initial motion to correct the 2021 QDRO. In her motion, she relied
upon Rule 12.540(a) in seeking to correct a "clerical error." She
asserted that the above-quoted language of paragraph 6 was
"presumably mistakenly added" to the QDRO. She moved for the
court to correct the QDRO so that she would be entitled to her
share of Former Husband's DROP benefits.

 Former Wife subsequently filed an amended motion to correct
the 2021 QDRO. She still claimed the language in paragraph 6
was a clerical error but added claims that the language in
paragraph 6 of the QDRO depriving her of the DROP money
resulted from Former Husband committing fraud, exercising
duress, and engaging in civil theft and conversion. Former
Husband contested the motions' allegations.

 3 The Corrective Order mentions in passing that an order
entered without subject matter jurisdiction is void; however, given
the court's explicit order requiring Former Husband to prepare the
QDRO, and its reservation of jurisdiction for entry of orders, it is
clear that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter
the 2021 QDRO.
 4 Former Wife does not deny receipt of a copy of the QDRO

when the court entered same in 2021, but she denies receipt of a
letter from FRS in 2022, showing a copy being sent to her, advising
that she would not participate in Former Husband's DROP
benefits under the terms of the 2021 QDRO.

 3
 The Dispute Over DROP Payments

 Under certain circumstances, an employee participating in
the FRS pension plan can enter or participate in DROP. As an
oversimplified explanation of DROP, that means although the
employee is still employed, not yet actually retired, FRS begins
making pension payments into an account designated for the
employee. Payments to an employee's designated DROP account
are "the retirement benefits that would have been paid [monthly]
had the employee retired," instead of continuing to work. Ganzel
v. Ganzel, 770 So. 2d 304, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

 Depending upon what the employee has elected, those
monthly pension payments can be made into the participant's
DROP account for several years while the employee continues to
work and draw regular pay. The employee cannot access the funds
in the DROP account until full retirement and separation from
employment, at which point the accumulated lump sum, interest,
and cost of living adjustment payments become available to the
fully retired former employee.

 Although the MSA and final judgment were clear that Former
Wife was entitled to half of the marital portion of Former
Husband's FRS pension, neither the MSA nor the final judgment
mentioned DROP. Former Husband's attorney testified that he
prepared the subject QDRO to exclude Former Wife's right to
receive any of the DROP money because the MSA was silent as to
DROP. Former Wife testified that she never intended to waive her
right to receive her share of Former Husband's DROP money,
while Former Husband testified that it was his specific intent to
exclude her from participating in his DROP benefits.5

 Correction of Clerical Mistake or Substantive Change

 To resolve the parties' dispute, the trial court conducted an
evidentiary hearing over the span of two days. The trial court

 5 Former Husband's failure to respond to requests for
admission served by Former Wife resulted in certain facts being
deemed admitted by him.

 4
 concluded that the language in paragraph 6 of the 2021 QDRO
excluding Former Wife's receipt of DROP benefits should not have
been included and was added in error. Paragraph 6 was ordered
stricken from that QDRO by the Corrective Order so that Former
Wife would receive her fifty percent share of the marital portion of
Former Husband's DROP benefits.

 The trial court made the following statement in its Corrective
Order, "Rule 12.540(a) allows a mistake in a judgment or order to
be corrected by the Court at any time on its own initiative or on
the motion of any party." That leads us to conclude that the trial
court relied upon Rule 12.540(a) in granting relief. That
subsection of the rule provides:

 (a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in
 judgments or other parts of the record and errors
 arising from oversight or omission may be
 corrected by the court at any time on its own
 initiative or on the motion of any party and after
 such notice, if any, as the court orders. During
 the pendency of an appeal such mistakes may be
 so corrected before the record on appeal is
 docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter
 while the appeal is pending may be so corrected
 with leave of the appellate court.

Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.540(a).

 The provisions of Rule 12.540(a) and (b), relevant to our
analysis, are identical to the provisions of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.540(a) and (b), which permit us to consider cases
decided under either rule. "The ‘clerical mistakes' referred to by
rule 1.540(a) are only ‘errors or mistakes arising from accidental
slip or omission, and not errors or mistakes in the [s]ubstance of
what is decided by the judgment or order.'" Byers v. Callahan, 848
So. 2d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quoting Town of Hialeah
Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1979)); see also
Lorant v. Whitney Nat'l Bank, 162 So. 3d 244, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA
2015) ("A trial court ‘has no authority under Rule 1.540(b) to make
substantive changes.'" (quoting Freeman v. Sanders, 562 So. 2d
834, 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990))). "Hence, the rule is essentially

 5
 designed to correct typographical errors and the like rather than
to address due process violations or substantive errors in a
judgment." Purdue v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 259 So. 3d 918,
921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Rule 1.540(a) is only available to correct
"an accidental, non-substantive mistake of the pen." Steele v.
Brown, 197 So. 3d 106, 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

 The Corrective Order uses the word "mistake" and "error"
rather than "clerical mistake," and it certainly does not deal with
an accidental slip, typographical error, or mistake of the pen.
Further, Former Wife admitted in her answer brief that "the
evidence has shown that this was not a clerical mistake."

 The trial court noted that the language in paragraph 6 of the
QDRO "harmed and reduced Former Wife's share of the [FRS]
Pension Plan and increased Former Husband's portion." The
Corrective Order changed the substantive financial rights of the
parties. The Corrective Order amounts to a 180-degree change
from the 2021 QDRO, which denied Former Wife any of Former
Husband's DROP money, to now granting Former Wife her one-
half share of the marital portion of his DROP money. A corrective
order which changes the parties' relative shares in an asset is a
substantive change, not the "correction of a clerical mistake."
Steele, 197 So. 3d at 109.

 "A trial court has ‘no authority under Rule 1.540(a) to make
substantive changes.'" Lorant, 162 So. 3d at 245 (quoting
Freeman, 562 So. 2d at 835). Litigants are not entitled to relief
under rule 1.540(a) if the proposed "correction" of the earlier order
would substantially change its impact and effect. Gulfstream
Micro Sys., Inc. v. Kingsbridge Boca Ass'n, 564 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla.
4th DCA 1990). Thus, we hold that the trial court's Corrective
Order improperly made a substantive change in erroneous reliance
upon Rule 12.540(a).

 Rule 12.540(b) permits a trial court to grant relief from
judgments and orders, which would allow substantive changes
under specified circumstances. We note that this subsection of the
rule is not mentioned in the Corrective Order; however, we will
consider its possible applicability. The only reasons for which
relief may be granted under that subsection that could possibly

 6
 apply here are set forth in Rule 12.540(b)(1) "mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" and (3) "fraud
(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party." Fla.
Fam. L. R. P. 12.540(b)(1) and (3). The trial court does mention
"mistake" in the Corrective Order, but it made no finding
regarding fraud despite Former Wife's allegations to that effect.
None of the other reasons in subsections (1) or (3) were alleged or
found to have existed; however, that is all beside the point because
of timing.

 To seek relief under Rule 12.540(b), "[t]he motion must be filed
within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more
than 1 year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered
or taken . . . ." Here, Former Wife's motion to correct the QDRO
entered October 11, 2021, was filed on April 11, 2024, long after
the 1 year period provided by Rule 12.540(b)(1) and (3), had
expired. Thus, the trial court lacked authority to enter the
Corrective Order under Rule 12.540(b).

 Accordingly, we are compelled to quash the July 15, 2024
Order On Former Wife's Amended Motion To Correct Qualified
Domestic Relations Order, and remand for further proceedings
including the issuance of an amended QDRO, if required by FRS,
to restore the parties' status and rights to what was set forth in
the October 11, 2021 QDRO. By reaching this decision, we do not
condone or find appropriate the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the
original QDRO, given the language contained in the MSA and final
judgment. Instead, we hold that under the circumstances and
timing present in this case, the remedy sought under Rule 12.540
is not available to Former Wife.

 REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

LAMBERT and JAY, JJ., concur.

 7
 _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
 _____________________________

 8