In Neilson v. Gurley, 888 P.2d 130 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) the Utah Court of Appeals applied this language to a situation in which the trial court entered a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages and attorney fees and, twenty days later, amended the judgment to reflect that the plaintiff was also entitled to recover costs. The court held that "the effect of the amendment did not create a new judgment for purposes of determining the timeliness of appeal, and the time in which the defendant could appeal commenced to run from the date of the original judgment." The court determined that the "amendment was purely clerical in nature" and did not "change the character of the judgment" or "affect any substantive rights running to the litigants."