## Facts

- Edward Paul Laine and Gale T. Gregory-Laine married in Indiana in 1994 and later moved to Texas.
- The couple had one child.
- After the parties became estranged, Edward moved to Kansas.
- In January 2002, Gale filed for divorce in Texas. Edward appeared in that case, filed an answer, and filed two counterpetitions.
- On October 15, 2003, the Texas court issued a temporary restraining order barring Edward from starting any action in another jurisdiction concerning dissolution, spousal or child support, child custody, or other matters incident to divorce.
- Two days later, on October 17, 2003, Edward filed a separate divorce action in Kansas and sought an award of property located in Kansas that he had acquired during the marriage.
- Edward sent a letter to the Texas court advising it of the Kansas filing, but he did not appear at the Texas hearing concerning the restraining order.
- The Texas court then issued a supplemental temporary injunction barring Edward from instituting or prosecuting divorce proceedings in other jurisdictions until the Texas case was resolved.
- Gale was served in the Kansas action but did not appear.
- At the Kansas default hearing, Edward told the Kansas court there was a domestic proceeding in Texas involving custody and visitation, but he did not disclose the Texas restraining order or supplemental injunction.
- In December 2003, the Kansas court entered a default divorce decree for Edward and awarded him various marital assets.
- Gale moved in the Kansas court to set aside the default decree based on comity and K.S.A. 60-260(b). The district court set aside the Kansas decree, and Edward appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the Kansas district court abuse its discretion by setting aside the Kansas default divorce decree under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6) based on comity to a first-filed Texas divorce action and Texas orders restraining parallel litigation?
2. Was it necessary for the district court to treat the Kansas default decree as void under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(4) in order to grant relief?

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the order setting aside the Kansas default divorce decree.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in granting relief under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6) because the Texas divorce was filed first, remained pending, and the Texas court had issued orders prohibiting Edward from pursuing parallel divorce litigation elsewhere.
- The court concluded that comity supported leaving the dissolution and related matters to the Texas court to avoid conflicting decrees and interference with the Texas court’s ongoing exercise of jurisdiction.
- Because relief was properly granted under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6), the court did not need to decide whether the Kansas decree was void under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(4).
- The court rejected Edward’s argument that the judge who set aside the decree improperly overruled the judge who entered the default, distinguishing cases that involved a later judge simply reweighing the same facts without materially changed circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- A Kansas court may apply comity to give effect to a sister-state court’s prior exercise of jurisdiction over the same marital dissolution to avoid inconsistent judgments.
- When two courts have concurrent authority over the same subject matter and parties, the court that first acquires jurisdiction is generally allowed to proceed without interference from a later-filed action in another jurisdiction.
- K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6) permits a court to grant relief from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief,” and it is reserved for unusual situations where equity supports reopening the judgment.
- A default divorce decree may be set aside under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6) when a first-filed out-of-state divorce action is pending and an out-of-state court has entered restraining orders aimed at preventing parallel divorce litigation.
- If a district court properly grants relief under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6), an appellate court may affirm without deciding whether the judgment is also void under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(4).

## Conclusion

The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed vacating Edward’s Kansas default divorce decree because Texas first obtained jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce, Texas issued orders barring Edward from pursuing divorce litigation elsewhere while the Texas case was pending, and the Kansas district court acted within its discretion under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6) to grant equitable relief consistent with comity and to prevent conflicting results.


Edward Paul Laine v. Gale T. Gregory-Laine, 120 P.3d 802 (2005)