.webp)
.png)
Default judgments should be avoided whenever possible. The logic underlying this statement is quite clear: default judgments are always against your best interests, because even if you have a “meritorious defense” or method to overcome this judgment, you will still expend considerable time and energy correcting this issue. In some instances, default judgments can’t be avoided, and in those cases parties need to know the avenues available to file a successful motion to vacate.
As we will explore in greater detail, Maryland law doesn’t see default judgments as things which should carry “punitive consequences”; in other words, Maryland law presumes that these judgments should be overturned, if necessary, to arrive at relatively more fair and just outcomes. However, parties need a viable defense to the judgment, as courts aren’t necessarily compelled to overturn judgments purely upon request. If a party have a solid defense to his or her absence (which led to the default judgment), then Maryland law allows for such orders to be vacated in most instances.
The case of Wells v. Wells (2006) is another relatively older case, but one which deserves attention because of its treatment of this issue of default judgments in Maryland. Let’s go over this case in detail.
Facts of the Case
The parties married in 1996 and had one son (in 1998). The father petitioned for absolute divorce in September of 2004; he requested primary physical custody, child support, among other “appropriate relief,” and contended that the mother had been unfaithful during the marriage. After the mother failed to attend trial, the court entered a default judgment against her.
Notice of this default allegedly reached the mother, but she still failed to file a standard appeal in a timely fashion. Then, eventually, the mother filed a motion to vacate the default order or alter or amend the divorce judgment. She argued that the father had actually interfered with her ability to participate in the trial or file a standard review of the default judgment. The motion was denied, and then the mother appealed that denial.
Ruling & Analysis
In its ruling, the appellate division referenced several pieces of authority which outlined the principle we described earlier – in Maryland law, courts will defer to the “truth seeking function” of the legal process when someone wishes to honestly pursue that route. What that means, in practice, is that courts should not strike down a motion (to vacate a default judgment order) without at least giving due consideration to the substantive arguments made by the party. In this situation, the appellate division concluded that the trial court had erred by failing to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the merits of the mother’s arguments. The father tried to undermine the mother’s argument on appeal by claiming that the mother didn’t have evidence which could reasonably expect to meet the standard to prove fraudulence; the appellate division rejected this claim, holding that weighing or assessing the credibility of evidence was the function of the trial court.
Again, it’s very important for regular Murphy law readers to fully understand the implications of default judgments, as these orders do tend to happen. In some cases, as alleged here, they may be impacted by one party’s fraudulent behavior. In any event, you need to be aware of how these processes work if you ever need to vacate or modify one of these orders.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
Readers who want to know more about how default judgments work under current Maryland law, how to vacate a default judgment, the potential ramifications of adultery on custody arrangements, or any other related family law matter, contact one of the family law lawyers at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
