Das v. Das
undisclosed reporter information (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court will not vacate a default judgment for alleged extrinsic fraud or irregularity when the moving party's own evasive conduct, such as fleeing the jurisdiction with a minor child and failing to provide a current address, is the predominant cause of their failure to participate in the proceedings.
Facts:
- Vincent Das ("Husband") and Anuradha Das ("Wife") were married and had two minor children, Radha and Jaya.
- Following a domestic violence protective order that granted Wife custody, the parties entered an "Interim Agreement" in December 1998, in which Husband agreed to surrender the children's passports for safekeeping.
- Husband did not deliver the children's passports as agreed upon in the mediation.
- On or about April 16, 1999, after being served with Wife's amended complaint for divorce, Husband fled the United States with their daughter, Radha, without Wife's knowledge or consent.
- Husband first went to Japan and later settled in India with Radha.
- Throughout this period, Husband continued to pay rent on his apartment in Kensington, Maryland, which remained his address of record with the court.
- Husband's father, who held his power of attorney in the United States, was unable to provide the court with Husband's exact address in India.
Procedural Posture:
- Anuradha Das ('Wife') filed an Amended Complaint for Absolute Divorce against Vincent Das ('Husband') in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, a trial court.
- Husband, through his attorney, filed a preliminary Motion to Strike, which the court denied.
- Husband's attorney subsequently filed a Motion to Strike her Appearance, which the court granted.
- After Husband failed to file an Answer to the complaint, the court entered an Order of Default against him at Wife's request.
- The trial court held a final hearing, which Husband did not attend, and entered a Judgment of Absolute Divorce.
- Husband retained new counsel and filed a Motion to Vacate the Order of Default, which the trial court denied.
- Husband then appealed the denial of his Motion to Vacate to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion to vacate a default judgment of absolute divorce when the moving party intentionally fled the country with a minor child in violation of a custody agreement, failed to inform the court of his new address, and then claimed the judgment was procured by extrinsic fraud and procedural irregularity?
Opinions:
Majority - Thieme, J.
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to vacate a default judgment when the moving party's own misconduct caused their inability to defend the suit. To vacate an enrolled judgment, a party must demonstrate extrinsic fraud, mistake, or irregularity, and also show they acted with diligence and in good faith. Here, Husband failed to establish extrinsic fraud by clear and convincing evidence; his wounds were self-inflicted. He had a duty to keep himself informed of the case's progress and to provide the court with his current address, both of which he failed to do after absconding with his child. His own evasive actions, not any deception by Wife's counsel, were the predominant cause of his failure to participate. Furthermore, Husband's argument of procedural irregularity fails because the court properly granted his counsel's motion to withdraw after she followed the required notification procedures. Finally, Husband cannot demonstrate the good faith necessary for equitable relief, as his actions of fleeing the jurisdiction, violating custody arrangements, and concealing his whereabouts demonstrate 'unclean hands.'
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms the 'clean hands' doctrine within the context of family law litigation, establishing that a party cannot benefit from their own wrongful and evasive conduct. It reinforces the principle that litigants have an affirmative and continuing duty to keep the court informed of their address and to participate in proceedings. The court makes it clear that it will not reward a party's attempt to thwart the judicial process by fleeing the jurisdiction, especially when it involves the wrongful removal of a child. Additionally, the court’s discussion on the grounds for divorce reflects a significant jurisprudential shift, recognizing that older, more restrictive interpretations of 'cruelty' are inconsistent with modern public policy against domestic violence.
Unlock the full brief for Das v. Das