Court Opinion

ID: 9737827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:35:06.342916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:01.651224
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The standard of review to be employed was properly set forth by this Court in the case of Brewer v. Brewer (1980), Ind.App., 403 N.E.2d 352, at 354:
“We must next decide whether Paulina was adequately represented in the present action. In making this determination, we feel that the proper standard to be applied is whether or not there was a showing of actual prejudice, Gann v. Burton, [(1974) Tenn., 511 S.W.2d 244] supra, and that the incompetent party had a meritorious defense which it was prevented from making. Judd v. Gray, Gdn., [(1901) 156 Ind. 278, 59 N.E. 849] supra.” (Our emphasis.)
In applying this standard to the present case, the respondent must fail on both counts. Neither actual prejudice nor a meritorious defense has been illustrated. Thus, no reversible error exists.
We are not here dealing with a minor of tender years. This action concerns a mature male who was capable of fathering a child. The respondent was seventeen years old at the time of trial and had, at the initiation of this action, employed an attorney to represent his interests. Following the withdrawal of the first attorney, the respondent, through apparent lack of interest and diligence, failed to secure additional representation. The court’s concern for his interests certainly far exceeded his own concern.
Eleven months passed between the filing of this action and the trial. More than sufficient time elapsed to allow the respondent the opportunity to take any action he desired. No showing whatsoever is made that the young man failed to understand his rights or lacked the capacity to assert them. The evidence also shows that the respondent was employed part-time in a rock band and, therefore, had an income independent of his parents’ support.
The trial court here was fully cognizant of the respondent’s rights and paid particular attention to this issue both before and during the trial. All factors were properly considered by the trial court in making the decision to proceed with the trial.
The judgment should be affirmed.