AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case involves a dissolution of marriage between the Petitioner (Wife) and the Respondent (Husband), who were married in 1984 and have one minor child. The Wife filed for divorce in February 2000, and after unsuccessful attempts to personally serve the Husband, service was effected by posting at his last known address. The Husband later engaged an attorney, but disputes arose regarding whether he had properly appeared in the case before a default decree was entered against him (paras 2-8).

Procedural History

• District Court, December 4, 2000: The district court denied the Husband's motion to set aside the default decree of dissolution of marriage, finding that he had adequate notice, failed to timely respond, and did not meet the requirements under Rule 1-060(B) to set aside the decree (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Husband): Argued that the default decree should be set aside because his attorney had appeared in the case before the default judgment was entered, entitling him to three days' written notice under Rule 1-055(B). He also contended that the general policy favoring adjudication on the merits supported setting aside the decree (paras 9-10).
• Appellee (Wife): Asserted that the Husband was not entitled to notice under Rule 1-055(B) because his attorney had not officially appeared in the case before the default was entered. She argued that the Husband had no meritorious defense and failed to meet the requirements of Rule 1-060(B) to set aside the default decree (paras 10-11).

Legal Issues

• Was the Husband entitled to three days' written notice under Rule 1-055(B) before the default decree was entered?
• Should the clerk's entry of default or the default decree be set aside under Rule 1-055(C) or Rule 1-060(B)?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of the motion to set aside the default decree and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 25).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Bustamante and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• The court held that the Husband's attorney had "appeared in the action" by filing an answer to the petition before the default decree was entered, which triggered the requirement under Rule 1-055(B) for three days' written notice before the default decree could be entered (paras 20-22).
• The court emphasized that Rule 1-055(B) protects parties who have indicated a clear intention to defend, even if their appearance occurs after the clerk's entry of default but before the court's entry of default judgment (paras 22-23).
• The district court erred by applying the stricter Rule 1-060(B) standard for setting aside the default decree instead of the "good cause" standard under Rule 1-055(C) for setting aside the clerk's entry of default (paras 23-24).
• The case was remanded for a hearing to determine whether there was "good cause" to set aside the clerk's entry of default (para 25).