## Facts

- Mr. Fuchs (husband) and Mrs. Fuchs (wife) were married and had a child.
- Mr. Fuchs filed a fault-based divorce petition against Mrs. Fuchs.
- Mrs. Fuchs appeared in the first action, denied the allegations, and asserted that Mr. Fuchs had committed adultery.
- The first divorce proceeding was discontinued.
- Mr. Fuchs later filed a new fault-based divorce petition.
- Mr. Fuchs told Mrs. Fuchs that if she did not contest the new divorce petition, he would give her full custody of their child.
- Mrs. Fuchs agreed to that arrangement and intentionally did not appear or contest the second divorce action.
- The court granted Mr. Fuchs a divorce on Mrs. Fuchs’s default.
- After entry of the default divorce judgment, Mrs. Fuchs sought to have the default opened and the judgment vacated so the divorce proceeding could be reopened, asserting that her default had been intentional and tied to the custody promise.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse who knowingly and intentionally defaulted in a divorce action, based on a private custody-related promise, may later obtain vacatur of the default judgment and reopening of the proceeding.
2. Whether the existence of a collateral custody agreement, without a showing of fraud, coercion, or comparable grounds, supplies a sufficient basis for equitable relief from a deliberate default in a matrimonial action.

## Decision

- The court denied Mrs. Fuchs’s request to vacate the default divorce judgment.
- The court refused to reopen the divorce proceeding on the ground that the default was a knowing and deliberate choice made pursuant to the parties’ arrangement.

## Legal Principles

- Relief from a default judgment is discretionary and generally requires a legally recognized justification for the default (such as excusable neglect, fraud, duress, or lack of jurisdiction), along with a basis to litigate the merits.
- A calculated, intentional decision to default—made to gain an expected benefit outside the litigation—does not, standing alone, amount to an acceptable excuse for vacating a judgment.
- A private understanding connected to custody may not displace the court’s authority over child-related matters, but its mere existence does not automatically permit a party to undo a final judgment obtained after an intentional nonappearance.
- Courts give weight to the finality and stability of judgments and are reluctant to reopen matrimonial judgments where the moving party’s default was purposeful and not the product of wrongful conduct that would justify equitable relief.

## Conclusion

In Fuchs v. Fuchs, the court declined to set aside a divorce judgment entered on the wife’s default because the wife had knowingly chosen not to contest the second divorce petition in reliance on the husband’s custody promise; absent fraud, coercion, or another recognized ground for vacatur, an intentional default was not a sufficient basis to reopen the matrimonial proceeding.


Fuchs v. Fuchs, 64 N.Y.S.2d 487 (1946)