Court Opinion

ID: 9651403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:18:41.794239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:33.588186
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Associate Judge
(dissenting) :
On October 2, 1973, on the ground of voluntary separation, appellant filed suit for an absolute divorce from her husband of four years, two of which were spent living apart.1 She thereafter filed an affidavit of indigency, together with a detailed financial statement, and was allowed to proceed with the divorce action without prepayment of fees or costs, including those for appointment of counsel.
Appellant was unable to serve the summons and complaint on her husband, whose whereabouts are unknown, and she so informed the court in an affidavit of diligent search.2 She then filed a motion to reduce the service by publication requirements of Super.Ct.Dom.Rel.R. 4(j) to one newspaper, alleging that she was the sole support of herself and her two minor children; was employed at a gross salary of $370 per month ($317 take-home) ; 3 was proceeding with her divorce action in forma pauperis, and that she was financially unable to pay for publication in two newspapers. With commendable candor, appellant acknowledged that she would be able to raise the amount necessary to publish in the Washington AFRO-American, “which is the least expensive newspaper for publication”,4 but that she would be unable to continue with her divorce action if the motion was denied. In an order of November 14, 1973, the court specifically found that for good cause shown appellant should be allowed to reduce the publication requirement to one newspaper but inexplicably, and without notice to appellant, changed that newspaper from the Washington AFRO-American to the Washington Star-News. A certified copy of a printed order to the same effect was sent to the newspaper that same day.5 In the notice of appeal, and again in response to an inquiry at oral argument before this court on April 24, 1974, counsel for appellant asserted that the order was entered ex parte, by a judge in chambers, without notice or hearing.
Appellant stated in her brief that the cost of publication in the Washington Star-News was at that time $93.45 as op*428posed to $35 in the Washington AFRO-American. And again, when queried at oral argument, counsel stated that appellant did not know about the order of publication until the notice had been twice published, and that she had thereafter been billed for that amount. The majority says that this may or may not be so, and would remand the case to the trial court because of an inadequate record.6 I rely upon the integrity of counsel’s representations to this court and would dispose of the merits of this appeal without further delay.
In an almost identical case, Johnson v. Johnson, D.C.App., 329 A.2d 451 (1974), this court held it was error to deny a motion for an order of limited publication, accepting the comparative cost figures presented without question. Here, of course, the motion for limited publication was granted, yet the substitution of newspapers was tantamount to a denial of the motion, effectively precluding appellant from further prosecution of her action for divorce. The majority suggests that the judge in chambers decided the motion in a vacuum. I would not so characterize the learned judge’s conduct and think it clear that he was aware that appellant’s predicament was precisely as stated in her motion. Indeed, he found that appellant had shown good cause to reduce publication to one newspaper and this finding was surely based upon appellant’s inability to serve her husband despite diligent efforts to find him, and her financial inability to proceed with her divorce action unless publication in the Washington Law Reporter be dispensed with and publication in the Washington AFRO-American, the least expensive newspaper, be allowed.7 How the Washington Star-News entered the picture is unknown. How counsel could have anticipated such a happenstance, when no such relief was requested, or could have voiced an objection when the deed was done ex parte, without notice to anyone, and a certified copy of the order sent to the newspaper the same day defies explanation.
I would hold that the trial judge abused his discretion when, in the guise of affording appellant the financial relief she had requested and to which he found her entitled, he erected by fiat a financial barrier she could not meet, and reverse.

. No children were horn of the marriage and there are no property rights to be adjudicated. Appellant has two minor children by a previous marriage.

. Appellant lived in the same apartment building where she had shared an apartment with her husband before their separation. By way of emphasizing her inability to locate her husband, she states in her brief that the court had ordered her husband to refrain from threatening, molesting or assaulting her, or to get in touch with her in any way. Gomez v. Gomez, IF 056-71.

. In her financial statement appellant lists monthly expenses at $875.26.

. R. at 9.

. R. at 15.

. The majority nevertheless concludes from this inadequate record that publication has been made in the Star-News and appellant need only pay the bill to obtain proof of publication.

. See Harris v. Harris, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 325, 424 F.2d 806, 813, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 826, 91 S.Ct. 50, 27 L.Ed.2d 55 (1970).