Opinion ID: 1161647
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court Properly Denied Tarie's Motions to Continue the Trial.

Text: Once the trial court reopened the property distribution, Tarie twice moved to continue the trial, but the trial judge denied both motions. [18] Tarie appeals the denials of her motions to continue the trial because she had to try the case on very short notice with new counsel. Tarie maintains that she was prejudiced because neither her initial attorney nor her subsequent counsel could have effectively prepared for a trial on the property issues on such short notice. Specifically, she claims that because she had virtually no warning that the court would redistribute the property, she did not have time to obtain the necessary appraisals in preparation for trial. We disagree. In Siggelkow v. Siggelkow, [19] we expressly observed that late retention of counsel does not necessarily warrant a continuance: [W]hen new counsel is engaged just prior to the trial date, the alleged lack of preparation on the part of such counsel is not necessarily a ground for continuance; ... If the rule were otherwise, one or the other of the litigants could indefinitely avoid trial of the issues by making late substitutions. [20] Shortly before trial, Tarie elected to change attorneys. The trial court warned her that her decision to hire a new attorney would not entitle her to a continuance of trial. She secured new counsel on October 18, leaving her replacement attorney three weeks to prepare for trial. Despite this short notice, Tarie concedes that [her] new counsel did an adequate job of presenting evidence. Furthermore, Tarie had adequate time to obtain appraisals. Judge Ashman set aside the property distribution in the divorce decree on September 20, approximately six weeks before the trial. At that time, Bob's attorney mentioned in court that some appraisals needed to be done. The parties ultimately stipulated to many of the property values before trial. Where no stipulation was entered, the parties presented testimony or relied on earlier valuations of the property. In light of these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to continue.