Moore v. Moore
391 A.2d 762, 1978 D.C. App. LEXIS 298 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Superior Court Domestic Relations Rule 15(b), a court may permit a post-trial amendment to pleadings to conform to the evidence for issues tried by implied consent. Implied consent exists when a party had actual notice that an unpleaded issue was being litigated and a fair opportunity to contest it, which is often the case for claims that are inherent to the primary cause of action, such as child support in a custody dispute.
Facts:
- Reuben Moore and Sidney Moore were married and had one child, Jessica.
- After their marriage deteriorated and Reuben Moore allegedly stopped providing financial support, Sidney Moore moved with Jessica to her parents' home in New York in late December 1975.
- On February 22, 1976, Reuben Moore hired a detective, took physical custody of Jessica from her maternal grandfather in New York, and brought her to Washington, D.C.
- Reuben Moore then took the child on a 3.5-week trip to Europe and the Bahamas.
- Upon their return, on March 17, 1976, Sidney Moore and her parents confronted Reuben Moore and forcibly took Jessica back, returning with the child to New York.
Procedural Posture:
- Reuben Moore filed a complaint for custody of his daughter, Jessica, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
- Sidney Moore filed an answer to the complaint but did not file a counterclaim for affirmative relief.
- The case was tried in the Family Division of the Superior Court.
- At the conclusion of trial, the court orally awarded custody and child support to Sidney Moore.
- Sidney Moore then filed a post-trial motion to conform the pleadings to the evidence pursuant to Super. Ct. Dom. Rel. R. 15(b), seeking to add counterclaims for custody, child support, separate maintenance, and counsel fees.
- The trial court granted the motion and entered a written order awarding Sidney Moore custody, child support, separate maintenance, and attorneys' fees, and granted Reuben Moore visitation rights conditioned on a $7,500 bond.
- Reuben Moore, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Super. Ct. Dom. Rel. R. 15(b), may a court permit a post-trial amendment of pleadings to include a party's counterclaims for custody, child support, a visitation bond, attorneys' fees, and separate maintenance, on the grounds that these issues were tried by implied consent in a suit originally filed only for the other party's custody claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Ferren, Associate Judge
Yes, for the counterclaims of custody, child support, visitation bond, and attorneys' fees, but no for the claim of separate maintenance. A court may permit post-trial amendments under Rule 15(b) for issues tried by implied consent, meaning the opposing party had notice and an opportunity to litigate them. The court reasoned that custody was clearly at issue for both parties, as Sidney Moore's answer stated the child's best interests were with her and both parties presented evidence on their fitness. Child support and visitation bonds are inherent to a custody determination, as the court must fashion complete relief for the child's best interests. Attorneys' fees in custody cases are considered 'necessaries' for the child, and evidence regarding them was admitted without objection, thus providing notice. However, separate maintenance is not customarily part of a child custody suit and the evidence of the wife's financial needs was not so uniquely pertinent to her own support as to provide adequate notice that the issue was being litigated.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Rule 15(b) concerning amendments to conform to evidence, particularly within the context of domestic relations law. It establishes a functional distinction between issues that are inherently part of the original claim (like child support in a custody case) and those that are legally distinct (like spousal support). The decision reinforces the principle that while procedural rules should be flexible to ensure cases are decided on their merits, this flexibility is limited by the due process requirement of fair notice. Future litigants in similar cases are on notice that all matters integral to child custody may be decided, even if not explicitly pleaded, but separate causes of action will likely require formal pleading.
