The court scheduled a two day trial on a dissolution action including custody issues, parenting issues, and division of assets. Wife fired her initial counsel and had difficulty finding alternate counsel given her financial position. Wife ultimately obtained counsel who had a conflict with the scheduled trial date. Wife’s several motions for a continuance were denied and ultimately her new counsel withdrew leaving Wife without an attorney for trial. After trial, Wife filed an appeal arguing she should have been granted a continuance.

The Court of Appeals held that “the family court abused its discretion when it denied [Wife’s] motion for a continuance of the trial without considering any other factor than that it would delay the trial.” The family court should have considered the Snodgrass factors: “1) length of delay; 2) previous continuances; 3) inconveniences to litigants, witnesses, counsel, and the court; 4) whether the delay is purposeful or is caused by the accused; 5) availability of other competent counsel; 6) complexity of the case; and 7) whether denying the continuance will lead to identifiable prejudice.” The Court of Appeals considers each factor and holds the totality of the circumstances demonstrate Wife’s motion for a continuance should have been granted. The Court notes Wife was forced to cross-examine her own child, as well as an expert witness, the Court’s failure to consider maintenance, and the Court’s entry to suspension of parenting time without a finding of serious endangerment which all give weight to their conclusion that Wife should have been allowed a continuance so counsel could represent her.

Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell

The post Continuance of divorce trial – published opinion from Ky Court of Appeals appeared first on Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group.

BOUVETTE V. BOUVETTE

The Appellate Court held the Trial Court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion for a continuance of a four hour trial on financial matters. The Court used the Snodgrass factors to determine the denial was an abuse of discretion. The inconvenience a continuance would case the opposing party was minimal, and the inconvenience to the Court was unknown. The delays were not planned or purposeful. Appellant’s first request for a continuance was because she was ill and her attorneys withdrew. Her second request for a continuance was based on severe depression and supported by a letter from her Psychiatrist. Furthermore, Appellant attempted to obtain counsel, but did not have money for a retainer readily available. She filed motions in an attempt to obtain the funds necessary to retain an attorney, but there was a delay in obtaining the funds. The Court was aware of her efforts to obtain counsel, but nonetheless proceeded with the trial on financial matters. The case was complex including issues of dissipation of the marital assets and nonmarital tracing. Appellant was unable to present evidence and participate in the litigation in a meaningful way. She was identifiably prejudiced by the Court’s denial of her motion. Therefore, her request for a continuance should have been granted.

The post Ky Court of Appeals Published Opinion – Denial of Trial Continuance Reversed appeared first on Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group.