## Facts

- Husband and Wife married in 1978 and had two minor children.
- After marital conflict and domestic violence, a protective order issued in January 1998 granted Wife custody.
- Before the protective order expired, the parties executed a mediated “Interim Agreement” in December 1998 to maintain the custody and living status quo; it required Husband to stay out of the family home for a period and to place the children’s passports with the mediator.
- Around April 16, 1999, Husband left the United States with the older child, traveling first to Japan and then to India, without Wife’s consent and contrary to the custody arrangement.
- Wife filed for absolute divorce in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on grounds including cruelty and excessively vicious conduct, and sought custody and support.
- Husband was personally served but failed to timely respond; the circuit court entered an order of default and later a default judgment granting Wife an absolute divorce, custody, and related relief after receiving Wife’s testimony describing repeated physical and psychological abuse and resulting health effects.
- Husband moved to vacate the order of default and default judgment, asserted notice and procedural defects, requested a hearing, and sought a continuance while remaining abroad and not producing the child taken from the jurisdiction.
- The circuit court conditioned any hearing on Husband’s and the child’s presence, denied the requested continuance, and denied vacatur.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Husband’s motion to vacate the order of default and default judgment.
2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion or denied due process by refusing to grant a continuance of the divorce hearing.
3. Whether the circuit court erred or abused its discretion in granting Wife an absolute divorce on grounds of cruelty and excessively vicious conduct.

## Decision

- Affirmed the circuit court in all respects.
- Held the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying vacatur because Husband failed to establish “fraud, mistake, or irregularity” required to revise an enrolled judgment under Maryland Rule 2-535(b).
- Held denial of a continuance did not violate due process; Husband had notice and an opportunity to be heard but chose not to appear, and the condition that Husband return with the child was reasonable in light of his removal of the child from the jurisdiction.
- Held the evidence supported an absolute divorce for cruelty and excessively vicious conduct based on Wife’s credited testimony of ongoing physical and emotional abuse and adverse health consequences, with corroboration from the record.

## Legal Principles

- An enrolled final judgment may be revised only on a showing of “fraud, mistake, or irregularity” under Maryland Rule 2-535(b); dissatisfaction with the consequences of a party’s own litigation choices does not satisfy that standard.
- A trial court has broad discretion over continuances; due process is satisfied when a party receives notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, even if the party elects not to appear or comply with reasonable conditions related to the court’s authority and the child’s welfare.
- Credible testimony describing a pattern of physical and psychological abuse, including conduct affecting the spouse’s health, can establish cruelty and excessively vicious conduct sufficient for an absolute divorce; appellate review defers to the trial court’s credibility findings.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld a default judgment of absolute divorce and related relief, concluding that Husband failed to meet the stringent standard to vacate an enrolled judgment, that proceeding without further continuance did not deny due process given Husband’s voluntary absence and removal of a child from the jurisdiction, and that Wife’s evidence of domestic abuse supported divorce on cruelty-based grounds.


Das v. Das, 133 Md. App. 1, 754 A.2d 441 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000)