No Continuance for Pro Se Husband
Published: June 11, 2012
Tags: Domestic Relations, Per Curiam Opinion, Virginia Court of Appeals
A divorce court did not err in denying husband a continuance, entering the final divorce decree as presented by wife’s counsel and awarding wife $960 in attorney’s fees, the Court of Appeals says.
Husband argues that as a pro se party, he should have been served with notice of the hearing to enter the final divorce decree. Husband initiated the legal process by filing the complaint for divorce, so he signed a pleading in the case. Wife’s counsel mailed a copy of the notice and motion of the entry of the final decree to husband at the mailing address that he provided. Pursuant to Va. Code § 20-99, wife’s counsel provided sufficient notice to husband of the upcoming hearing.
Husband contends Local Rule No. 4 applies in his situation; however, he did not present this argument to the trial court and it will not be considered on appeal. Husband presented no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his continuance request. The award of attorney’s fees was reasonable considering the circumstances of the case.
Bew v. Bew (Per Curiam) No. 2257-11-2, April 17, 2012; Hanover County Cir.Ct. (Harris) Robert M. Bew II, pro se; Robert L. Isaacs on brief for appellee. VLW 012-7-104(UP), 4 pp.
Interesting article. Please let us know if you need legal advice.
Tucker Griffin Barnes
Charlottesville, VA (434-973-7474)
Inquire@TGBLaw.com
www.TGBLaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment