Case Title: Tageant v. Tageant

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Tageant v. Tageant1996 WY 3909 P.2d 322Case Number: 95-148Decided: 01/05/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
  

Louis Frank TAGEANT, Jr., Appellant 
(Defendant)

v.

Elana Mae TAGEANT, Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Appeal from The District Court, Uinta County, John D. 
Troughton, J.

Louis Frank Tageant, Jr., Appellant 
prose.

No appearance for 
Appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, 
TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

MACY, Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Louis 
Tageant, Jr. (the husband) appeals from the judgment and decree of divorce which 
dissolved his marriage to Appellee Elana Mae Tageant (the 
wife).

[¶2]      We reverse and 
remand.

ISSUES

[¶3]      The husband 
presents two issues for our review:

I.

[¶4]      Whether Appellant 
(Defendant) was denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Federal Constitution when the trial court ignored a timely motion for a trial 
continuance based upon Appellee's (Plaintiff's) failure to answer the 
cross-complaint and interrogatories, and proceeded with trial without allowing 
the incarcerated pro se defendant any opportunity to be heard in opposition 
prior to subjecting him to significant property rights 
deprivations?

 

II.

[¶5]      Whether the trial 
court improperly denied a timely filed motion to vacate final judgment by ruling 
that (a) the defendant was free to appear at trial; (b) the defendant's prior 
criminal conduct, resulting in incarceration, justified his exclusion from the 
trial; and (c) pro se prisoner litigants are held to the same pleading and 
practice standards as professional attorneys?

FACTS

[¶6]      The wife filed a 
complaint for a divorce, seeking the dissolution of her marriage to the husband. 
The husband filed an answer to the complaint, generally admitting many of the 
allegations but denying that the wife was entitled to have a judgment on her 
claim of irreconcilable differences. He contended that a judgment should be 
entered in his favor under the common law theory of adultery. The wife requested 
a trial setting, and the district court set the case for trial on April 28, 
1995. The husband filed a timely motion for a continuance, but he failed to file 
a request for a hearing or a proposed order with his motion. The district court 
did not rule on the motion prior to the trial date, and the case proceeded to 
trial as scheduled. The husband, who was at the time incarcerated at the Wyoming 
Honor Farm, did not appear at the trial, and the district court entered a 
judgment against him. The husband appeals from this 
judgment.

DISCUSSION

[¶7]      We recently 
considered a case with similar facts. Murray v. Murray, 894 P.2d 607 (Wyo. 
1995). In Murray, the appellee filed a complaint, requesting a divorce from the 
appellant. 894 P.2d  at 608. After the hearing on the matter had been scheduled, 
the appellant filed a timely motion for a continuance and a request for 
transportation from the Wyoming State Penitentiary to the hearing in Cheyenne. 
Id. The district court did not respond to the motion or the request, and the 
trial proceeded as scheduled. Id. The appellant did not appear at the hearing, 
and the district court entered a judgment against him. Id. Our holding in that 
case is dispositive of the issues which are presented in the case at 
bar:

The Constitution of 
the United States and the Constitution of the State of Wyoming each provide that 
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due 
process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 6. "`It is 
basic that, before a property interest can be terminated, except in 
emergency situations, due process must be afforded to litigants in the form of 
notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.'" Sandstrom v. 
Sandstrom, 880 P.2d 103, 106 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting Lawrence-Allison and 
Associates West, Inc. v. Archer, 767 P.2d 989, 997 (Wyo. 1989)) (emphasis in 
original). It would have been a simple matter to allow [the appellant] to 
participate in the divorce hearing via conference call. [The appellant], 
however, was denied his day in court.

Id. (emphasis in 
original).

[¶8]      We again hold 
that the husband was entitled to participate in the hearing, at least through a 
conference call. Since he was not given that opportunity, his right to have due 
process was violated.

CONCLUSION

[¶9]      We reverse the 
judgment and decree of divorce which dissolved the husband's marriage to the 
wife and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings which are 
consistent with this opinion.