Court Opinion

ID: 9704546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:39:24.81447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:03.382973
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Although I agree with the statement of the law set forth in the majority opinion, I disagree with its application in the present case.
Here, Wife's counsel was retained more than ninety days after process was served and more than twenty days prior to Husband's motion for default. The record does not indicate that Wife's counsel took any action until after the court entered the default. Although the action had been pending for more than ninety days at the time counsel was hired, counsel did not enter an appearance in the dissolution proceeding; she did not seek additional time to respond; and she did not contact opposing counsel. Counsel took no action whatsoever to notify the trial court, Husband or Husband's attorney that she was representing Wife in the proceeding. Although such failures constitute neglect, there is no showing that they were excusable. I would affirm the trial court's order denying relief from the default judgment.