Court Opinion

ID: 9550695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:40:37.382723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:11.382120
License: Public Domain

PlERRON, J.,
dissenting: The court’s opinion well states the reasons why, in this factually difficult case, the defendant should be held to have made an entry of appearance. I dissent from the conclusion that the child support order was void.
Under K.S.A. 60-260(b) David could have moved to set aside the judgment as soon as he found out about it in April of 1983, but did not do so. At that time it was possibly voidable due to the defect in the notice of the default hearing. However, there is no indication that David’s rights were violated in any significant way by proceeding with the default hearing. No contention is made that a proper three-day notice would have secured the attendance of David or counsel. At his request, the court had *58already granted him a five-month continuance to August 15, 1983, which produced nothing in the way of activity on David’s part.
David apparently left the military in September of 1983, but made no eifort to challenge the outstanding court order until 1991.
The fact that the judgment of child support was voidable does not mean it was void. I would find the judgment is valid but remand the matter to the trial court for a determination of whether there has been a waiver of some or all of the support payments or whether laches might apply.