The record is unclear when it was presented to the court, but within four days of the scheduled trial and hearing, Husband signed a Motion for Continuance of Hearing. In that motion, Husband asserted he was without counsel and unavailable to attend the hearing. However, Husband did in fact appear at the appointed hour. The court established that jurisdiction was proper, denied the untimely motion for continuance and proceeded to trial on the issues of divorce. Husband now appeals from the Judgment and Decree of Divorce, claiming lack of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Due process includes notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Id. Husband does not dispute that notice was provided, rather he asserts that the notice he received was defective. He claims that the notice conveyed the distinct impression that the court would conduct a hearing to determine which court was appropriate, not a trial on the merits. The record does not support Husband's claims. Within three days after it was filed, and in direct response to Wife's Motion for Trial Setting, the court served the Notice of Setting on Husband's attorney in compliance with the rule. My attorney and I are ready to proceed to trial at that time and place.