As a threshold matter, appellant argues the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to vacate. Generally, motions in family court proceedings shall be submitted on documentary evidence, unless the court otherwise orders for good cause shown. The district court did not err in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing, because the record does not indicate that appellant requested oral testimony on the motion to vacate. This issue is not properly before us on appeal. Because the decree was based on the parties' stipulation, the issue of vacation is examined in the light of the law on stipulations.
Courts favor stipulations in dissolution cases as a means of simplifying and expediting litigation.
A knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel is sufficient to meet the requirement of representation by counsel. Appellant acknowledges that at the settlement conference, respondent's counsel advised him that he had the right to his own attorney. The stipulation specifies that appellant has freely and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Appellant argues that the waiver is ineffective because it is contained in the body of the stipulation, rather than in an addendum as recommended by the advisory committee comment to the family court rule. Appellant cites no authority in support of his contention that the stipulation must be vacated because the waiver of counsel is not in the form recommended by the family court rules.