ILNews

COA: Summons should notify of risk of default judgment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Due process requires that a respondent in a dissolution proceeding be notified of the risk of default for not appearing or otherwise responding, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday. The judges reversed a couple’s decree of dissolution, ruling it was void because the summons served on the wife was insufficient.

In Stephanie L. Cotton v. Charles C. Cotton, No.43A03-1005-DR-325, Stephanie Cotton appealed the denial of her motion to set aside the decree of dissolution dissolving her marriage to Charles. She argued the decree was void for insufficiency of process.

The summons she received was typewritten and prepared by Charles’ counsel. It told her that she or her attorney may appear and that she may respond, but nothing in it required her to do anything in response to the petition having been filed, other than appear before the court if directed to do so. There’s no evidence Stephanie was directed by the court to do anything.

Stephanie didn’t appear or respond because she believed they were trying to reconcile. Charles continued with the petition and the dissolution court defaulted Stephanie and entered the final dissolution decree, which involved custody of their son. After learning of the decree, she obtained counsel and tried to set aside the decree, arguing the summons didn’t comply with Indiana Trial Rule 4(C)(5).

The language of T.R. 4(C)(5) doesn’t squarely address the circumstances in this case, where no response was necessary as no responsive pleading is required in the dissolution of marriage. But due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, wrote Judge Edward Najam, and Stephanie was entitled to notice that a default judgment could be entered if she didn’t appear or respond.

“… the summons stated only that the final hearing may be held after sixty days from the date the petition was filed. Without a statement of the consequences, namely, that judgment could be entered without further notice should Wife fail to appear or otherwise respond, the summons did not satisfy due process or comply with the intent of Trial Rule 4(C)(5),” he wrote. “Accordingly, the dissolution court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over Wife, and the dissolution decree is void as a matter of law.”

The judges also held the summons was insufficient under Trial Rule 4.15(F). They reversed the entry of the dissolution decree and remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT