DAS V. DAS 754 A.2d 441 (2000) CASE BRIEF

DAS V. DAS

754 A.2d 441 (2000)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Vincent Das (H) fled to India with one of couple's minor children, challenged a response to his motion to strike a court order denying his motion to vacate default judgment of absolute divorce and request for hearing.

FACTS: H and W were married and eventually they separated in 1998. They had two children born in 1983 and 1985. W got a domestic violence protective order. The order granted W custody of the children. H and W entered into an agreement that H would not 'resume residence in the family home' for three months from December 10, 1998, and would 'deliver the children's passports to David S. Goldberg, mediator, for safekeeping.' H refused to return the child from visitation, telling W that the child didn't want to come. H fled the country, taking one child with him. H did not oppose a second complaint, because, he alleges, neither he nor his attorney were served. The court granted W legal and physical custody of the children by an order issued April 30. W filed her original Complaint for Absolute Divorce, which was never served. Cheryl P. Vural entered an appearance as counsel on H's behalf on March 25 and moved to strike W's divorce complaint. H and lawyer failed to appear for the scheduling conference on April 28, despite the court's notice. The court denied H's Motion to Strike on June 1. H's counsel quit and the court mailed H Notice to Employ New Counsel. All information was mailed to H as his 'last known mailing address,' but his attorney explained that her 'various efforts' to contact her client had been unsuccessful and she had not heard from him since April 13. H was thus without representation at the June 30 hearing on pendente lite child support. An Order of Default was entered on June 30. The Clerk mailed Husband a Notice of Default Order at the Kensington address. W also filed a child in need of assistance (CINA) action. It was discovered that the child was in Chandigarh, India. Gary Segal, H's attorney for employment matters, attended the divorce hearing and explained that he not feel that he would be capable of properly defending H in this matter.' The court excused the attorney, noting that any request for continuance would be denied, which 'is pretty typical in our process today. Under the best of circumstances, cases are not continued . . . .' W testified that she had been subject to repeated acts of physical and mental cruelty during the marriage. Her brother corroborated this testimony. H's father was not allowed to speak on behalf of his son. The court granted W an absolute divorce on the grounds of cruelty and excessively vicious conduct, legal and residential custody of the parties' minor children, child support, use and possession of the family home and family-use personalty, a monetary award, and attorney's fees. The court denied his Motion to Vacate Order of Default. It agreed to schedule a hearing on the condition that H and the minor child, are present. H appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner