Opinion ID: 2292412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Findings of Fact: Ziglar Case

Text: Pursuant to obtaining a decree of divorce, this Court by clear and convincing evidence finds Ms. Ziglar paid the Respondent $260.00. A Bill of Complaint for a Divorce A Vinculo Matrimonii was drawn up but the decree was never finalized because of Respondent's failure to serve the husband, pursuant to then-Maryland Rule 530 which states in part: Rule 530. Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction or Prosecution..., C. For Lack of Prosecution  Exception. An action is subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution at the expiration of one year from the last docket entry other than an entry made under this Rule, Rule 124, or Rule 125, except that an action for divorce a mensa et thoro and for permanent alimony is subject to dismissal under this section only after two years from the last docket entry. In addition, we note that no effort was made by Respondent to serve by publication. Mr. Cockrell testified: Her husband was never located, and on the question of the Daily Record, after we had problems locating him I told her, I said `We can run an order of publication, but that will take time.... I told her the better way would be to try to locate her husband, and that's what happened to the case, Your Honor. (T. 39). In mitigation, Mr. Cockrell argued that he was just serving the best interest of his client: ... If you can find your husband now, no problem, we can get it through earlier, but if I have to go through this procedure, it's got to run in the paper 3 weeks in a row to get it through, and the expense involved.... (T. 39). Mr. Cockrell also argued that Ms. Ziglar's purpose in contacting the Grievance Commission was not to file a complaint: ... She was simply trying to locate me. If she had contacted me at that point, I would have gone ahead and proceeded with it. (T. 38). Ms. Ziglar made repeated attempts to contact Respondent, but to no avail until the Attorney Grievance Commission intervened. At this point she was apprised that her case had been dismissed. She requested and received her $260.00 fee back from Mr. Cockrell.