Sangster v. Sangster
| Citation | 366 So.2d 1136 |
| Parties | Norman SANGSTER v. Lori SANGSTER. Civ. 1689. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1979 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Michael A. Sundock, Montgomery, for appellant.
Jasper B. Roberts, Montgomery, for appellee.
Appellant-husband appeals from an order by the Circuit Court of Montgomery County which denied his motion to set aside a divorce decree rendered by that court in a suit involving the parties to this appeal. The husband contends that the court's ruling on his motion was error because he was denied proper representation by having represented himself at the original hearing. We affirm.
Appellant and appellee were married in December 1976 and lived together as husband and wife until May 1978, at which time they separated. No children were born of their marriage. In June 1978 the wife filed a petition for divorce in the circuit court, alleging incompatibility as grounds therefor, and requesting alimony, property division, attorney's fees and restoration of her maiden name. The husband, acting as his own attorney, filed a responsive pleading entitled "Petition for Divorce Response to Summons and Complaint." This pleading conceded that there existed irreconcilable differences and incompatibility between the parties, but indicated that these problems were the result of the wife's having "become involved with" another party.
At the hearing in this cause the husband was not represented by counsel of record. No court reporter was present at this hearing and the proceedings were not reported. After hearing the evidence ore tenus the trial court issued a final decree of divorce dated September 20, 1978.
The divorce decree awarded to the wife the following: a 1977 Toyota automobile, substantially all the personal property owned by the parties, the sum of $500 as alimony in gross, and the sum of $250 as attorney's fees. The husband was awarded a soup tureen and an electric can opener and, in addition to the above-mentioned sums, was required to pay the court costs.
Shortly after this decree was rendered the husband apparently employed counsel to represent him. On September 27, 1978 a motion to set aside the final decree of divorce was filed on behalf of the husband. The grounds for this motion were that, "Norman Sangster represented himself, and because of said pro se representation, did not understand the proceedings, did not understand their import as relates to the taking of evidence in said cause, and did not have proper and adequate representation." The trial court denied this motion on October 10, 1978.
The husband argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the decree. He bases this argument essentially on the same grounds upon which he based his post-trial motion, I. e. that he was denied proper representation at the hearing by having represented himself. Insisting that his post-trial motion was in fact a motion for new trial, the husband further contends that the absence of a court reporter or recording device at the hearing constitutes "irregularity of the proceedings," and as such constitutes cogent grounds for a motion for new trial under Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-17-5.
We find no reversible error in the trial court's actions. The law in this state is clear that any person may manage or conduct his own case in any court in this state. Code of Alabama 1975, § 34-3-19; May v. Williams, 17 Ala. 23 (1849). In the instant case Mr. Sangster chose to proceed in the trial court without the aid of legal counsel. He cannot now be heard to complain that he was denied adequate representation. Any such denial resulted directly from his own volitional conduct. See Sanders v. Sanders, Ala.Civ.App., 342 So.2d 380 (1977).
Nor are we convinced that the absence of a court reporter at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blair v. Maynard
...attorney in courts of law is still uniformly recognized. See, e.g., Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408 (2nd Cir.1976); Sangster v. Sangster, 366 So.2d 1136 (Ala.Civ.App.1979); People v. Dunlap, 623 P.2d 408 (Colo.1981); Dobbins v. Dobbins, 234 Ga. 347, 216 S.E.2d 102 (1975), cert. denied, 423 ......
-
Allen v. Fountain
...is not sympathetic to claims that such a choice warrants a new trial or other postjudgment relief. For example, in Sangster v. Sangster, 366 So.2d 1136 (Ala.Civ.App. 1979), this court considered whether a new trial should be granted to a husband in a divorce action because the husband purpo......
-
Coker v. Farmers Mut. Exchange
...It is clear that the granting or denying of a rule 59 motion rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. Sangster v. Sangster, 366 So.2d 1136 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). However, such action by the trial court is subject to review at the appellate level and the trial court's action may be r......
-
Abbott, Matter of
...A.R.J.P., where the rule 20 record was in effect waived by the parties to the proceedings in the trial court. See Sangster v. Sangster, 366 So.2d 1136 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). Accordingly, the 10(d) record will be considered by this court in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support t......
-
Artificial People: Why Corporations Cannot Appear in Court Without a Lawyer
...in courts of law is still uniformly recognized. See, e.g., Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408 (2nd Cir. 1976); Sangster v. Sangster, 366 So. 2d 1136 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979); People v. Dunlap, 623 P.2d 408 (Colo. 1981); Dobbins v. Dobbins, 234 Ga. 347, 216 S.E.2d 102 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S......
-
Artificial People: Why Corporations Cannot Appear in Court Without a Lawyer
...attorney in courts of law is still uniformly recognized. See, e.g., Phillips v. Tobin, 548 E2d 408 (2nd Cir. 1976); Sangster v. Sangster, 366 So.2d 1136 (Ala.Civ.App. 1979); People v. Dunlap, 623 P.2d 408 (Colo. 1981); Dobbins v. Dobbins, 234 Ga. 347, 216 S.E.2d 102 (1975), cert, denied, 42......