Opinion ID: 1708023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the circuit court abuse its discretion in denying alicia's motion for relief from the default divorce judgment?

Text: Alicia contends her lack of fluency with the English language, her inexperience with court proceedings and the legal system, the fact she believed some notice would be given to her before trial, the series of referrals from legal aid services and her hospitalization for emotional problems all constitute excusable neglect warranting relief from the default judgment. SDCL 15-6-60(b)(1). We agree. The decision to grant or deny relief from a default judgment rests with the sound discretion of the trial court and we will not disturb the trial court's decision absent an abuse of that discretion. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Strub, 427 N.W.2d 836, 838 (S.D.1988). The trial court's discretion should be exercised liberally in accord with legal and equitable principles in order to promote the ends of justice. SDCL 15-6-60(b) authorizes relief from judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, surprise and fraud; ... ` This Court is more inclined to reverse for failure to set aside a judgment taken by default as in the absence of a litigant and his counsel than where such judgment has been set aside and trial on the merits granted.' A party seeking to have a judgment vacated under SDCL 15-6-60(b)(1) must meet two requirements. The applicant must show (1) the excusable neglect; and (2) a probable meritorious defense. As a procedural matter, the party seeking relief under 15-6-60(b) must meet the timeliness element of the statute. SDCL 15-6-60(b), in relevant part, states: `[t]he motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons [of subsections] (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.' Clarke v. Clarke, 423 N.W.2d 818, 820-21 (S.D.1988) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).