Das v. Das

Maryland Court of Special Appeals · Family Law

Family LawDivorceDefault JudgmentsRevisory PowerCrueltyContinuancesRule 2-535(b)extrinsic fraud

Facts

Wife filed for absolute divorce after a long history of domestic conflict, and Husband was personally served with the amended complaint while outside Maryland but within the United States. During the litigation, Husband left the country with one of the parties' minor children, failed to update the court with his address, did not file a timely answer, and a default was entered. At the divorce hearing, Husband had no counsel of record, although an attorney for other matters appeared and stated he was unprepared and had not entered an appearance. Wife testified to physical and mental cruelty, and her brother corroborated that testimony.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Husband's motion to vacate the default judgment under Rule 2-535(b), in not granting a continuance at the divorce hearing, or in granting Wife an absolute divorce on grounds of cruelty and excessively vicious conduct? More specifically, did Husband show extrinsic fraud, irregularity, diligence, and good faith sufficient to reopen the enrolled judgment?

Rule

After the thirty-day revisory period, a court may revise an enrolled judgment only for fraud, mistake, or irregularity, and the moving party must prove that ground by clear and convincing evidence and also show ordinary diligence, good faith, and a meritorious defense or cause of action. Extrinsic fraud is fraud collateral to the issues that actually prevents an adversarial trial, while intrinsic fraud concerns matters that were or could have been litigated in the case itself. A trial court has broad discretion on continuances, and reversal occurs only in exceptional instances of prejudicial error. In divorce cases, corroboration is required, but only slight corroboration is needed where collusion is unlikely.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nadia Rahman filed for divorce in Baltimore. Her spouse, Omar Rahman, was personally served while visiting Philadelphia, then moved to Dubai without notifying the court, though he knew the case was pending. After Omar failed to answer, Nadia requested default using the Baltimore apartment address Omar had used in prior filings, even though she had heard from a cousin that Omar might be abroad.

If Omar later moves to vacate the enrolled default judgment, arguing that Nadia committed extrinsic fraud by listing the Baltimore address, how should the court rule?

Explanation. After the 30-day period, revisory relief requires clear and convincing proof of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, plus diligence, good faith, and a meritorious defense. Extrinsic fraud is collateral fraud that actually prevents an adversarial trial. Under the majority's reasoning, merely continuing to use the address of record is not extrinsic fraud where the movant knew of the litigation, left during the case, and failed to keep the court informed of a current address. Omar's inability to participate is chiefly self-inflicted.