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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT