Cite as FSM Dev. Bank v. Kaminanga,16 FSM Intrm. 45 (Chk. 2008)

[16 FSM Intrm. 45]

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2002-1016

Decided: August 6, 2008

APPEARANCES:

[16 FSM Intrm. 46]

HEADNOTES

Judgments

Under Rule 58, upon a decision by the court the clerk must enter judgment as directed by the rule or the court, and every judgment must be set forth on a separate document. A judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a). FSM Dev. Bank v. Kaminanga, 16 FSM Intrm. 45, 46 (Chk. 2008).

Judgments – Stipulated

When the parties stipulate to a judgment, the judgment is not a decision by the court. FSM Dev. Bank v. Kaminanga, 16 FSM Intrm. 45, 46 (Chk. 2008).

Judgments – Stipulated

Rule 58 does not, by its terms, apply to stipulated or consent judgments because such judgments are not decisions by the court. FSM Dev. Bank v. Kaminanga, 16 FSM Intrm. 45, 46 (Chk. 2008).

Judgments – Stipulated

A stipulated judgment is not a judicial determination, but is a contract between the parties making the stipulation. FSM Dev. Bank v. Kaminanga, 16 FSM Intrm. 45, 47 (Chk. 2008).

Judgments – Stipulated

A stipulated judgment (also called a consent decree) although enforceable like any other judicial decree, is not a judicial determination of any litigated right but may be defined as a contract of the parties acknowledged in open court and ordered to be recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction. It does not constitute a resolution of parties' rights but is a mere recordation of their private agreement and once a consent decree has been entered it is generally considered to be binding on the parties and it cannot be amended or varied without each party's consent. FSM Dev. Bank v. Kaminanga, 16 FSM Intrm. 45, 47 (Chk. 2008).

Judgments – Stipulated

Strict compliance with Rule 58 is unnecessary in the case of a stipulated judgment, but the better practice may be for the clerk to enter a judgment that reflects the parties' stipulation as approved by the court. FSM Dev. Bank v. Kaminanga, 16 FSM Intrm. 45, 47 (Chk. 2008).

COURT'S OPINION

MARTIN YINUG, Associate Justice:

At the July 23, 2008 hearing the defendants orally withdrew their pending motions, with the exception of their request that the clerk enter a judgment that complies with Rule 58, because the parties had stipulated to a modified order in aid of judgment. The plaintiff, FSM Development Bank, has not responded to this motion.

Under Rule 58, "upon a decision by the court" the clerk shall enter judgment as directed by the rule or the court, and "[e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document. A judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a)." In this case the parties stipulated to a judgment. The judgment was thus not a decision by the court.

There is authority that Rule 58 does not, by its terms, apply to stipulated or consent judgments because such judgments are not decisions by the court. See In re Estate of Peebles, 454 S.E.2d 854,

[16 FSM Intrm. 47]

856 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995); McIlroy Bank & Trust v. Arco Corp., 785 S.W.2d 47, 48 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990), overruled on other grounds, Carden v. McDonald, 12 S.W.3d 643 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000). A stipulated judgment is not a judicial determination, but is a contract between the parties entering into the stipulation. Mailo v. Chuuk, 13 FSM Intrm. 462, 468 (Chk. 2005). A stipulated judgment (also called a consent decree) although enforceable like any other judicial decree, is not a judicial determination of any litigated right but may be defined as a contract of the parties acknowledged in open court and ordered to be recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction. Id. at 467-68. A consent decree or stipulated judgment does not constitute a resolution of parties' rights but is a mere recordation of their private agreement and once a consent decree has been entered it is generally considered to be binding on the parties and it cannot be amended or varied without each party's consent. Id. at 468.

Strict compliance with Rule 58 is thus unnecessary in this case, but the better practice may be for the clerk to enter a judgment that reflects the parties' stipulation as approved by the court. The clerk shall therefore enter judgment for the plaintiff against defendants Kapier Kaminanga and Roxanna Kaminanga, jointly and severally, nunc pro tunc, as of September 20, 2004.