CourtListener opinion 76899

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

[PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 FILED
 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
 March 8, 2005
 THOMAS K. KAHN
 No. 04-12343 CLERK

 D. C. Docket No. 02-00067-CV-JTC-3

RICHARD CHARLES FONTAINE,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JOAN THOMAS GUTH,
f.k.a. Joan Thomas Fontaine,

 Defendant- Cross-Defendant-
 Appellant,

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

 Defendant-Cross-Claimant-
 Appellee,

LARRY H. EVANS,

 Defendant.
 Appeal from the United States District Court
 for the Northern District of Georgia

 (March 8, 2005)

Before DUBINA and FAY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG*, Judge.

PER CURIAM:

 In this appeal, defendant-appellant Joan Thomas Guth (f. k. a. Joan Thomas

Fontaine) appeals from the district court's determination that the 1986 Qualified

Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") governing the equitable division of marital

assets between defendant-appellant and plaintiff-appellee Richard Charles

Fontaine remains in effect. Defendant-appellant requests that the Court reverse

the district court's determination that the 1990 and 1991 QDROs, which were

mutual modifications of the original 1986 QDRO, are null and void.

 Georgia domestic relations law makes clear that post-judgment modification

by a court of a divorce decree concerning the equitable distribution of property is

normally not permissible. See, e.g., Williams v. Williams, 268 Ga. 126, 129, 485

S.E.2d 772, 775 (Ga. 1997) ("[A]n unexpected increase in the value of a risky

 *
 Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade,
sitting by designation.

 2
 asset is insufficient grounds to upset the policy disfavoring modification of fixed

allocations of economic resources distributed in a property settlement."); Spivey v.

McClellan, 259 Ga. 181, 181-82, 378 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ga. 1989) ("Fixed

allocations of economic resources between spouses, those that are already vested

or perfected, are not subject to modification by the court while terminable

allocations are."); Coffey v. Alembik, 221 Ga. App. 501, 502, 471 S.E.2d 590, 591

(Ga. Ct. App. 1996) ("[A] modification of the provisions of the divorce decree for

the equitable division of property . . . is not permissible.").

 Defendant-appellant nonetheless contends that the 1986 QDRO may be

modified by a court because the parties thereto made a "mutual mistake" in

drafting the terms of the court-approved settlement agreement. In support of this

proposition, defendant-appellant cites Georgia Supreme Court decisions which

permitted post-judgment modifications of divorce settlements in the limited

contexts of alimony and child support. See Douglas v. Cook, 266 Ga. 644, 645,

469 S.E.2d 656, 657 (Ga. 1996); Smith v. Smith, 230 Ga. 238, 240, 196 S.E.2d

437, 439 (Ga. 1973); see also O.C.G.A. § 19-6-19 (modification of child support

and alimony awards specifically allowed by statute). Because this case involves

the equitable distribution of property and not alimony or child support, the Court

declines to adopt defendant-appellant's fractured interpretation of Georgia law.

 3
 Defendant-appellant also contends that the 1986 QDRO may be modified by

a court in order to correct a clerical or scrivener's error therein. Defendant-

appellant is correct that Georgia law gives courts the authority to correct clerical

mistakes or other similar non-substantive errors arising from oversight or omission

in judgments, orders and other parts of the record. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(g). Upon

a close examination of the record, however, the Court has uncovered no evidence

of such an error.

 After reviewing the record, reading the parties' briefs and having the benefit

of oral argument, we affirm the judgment of the district court filed on October 6,

2003.

 AFFIRMED.

 4