Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lytle v. Lytle

Court of Appeals of Idaho

March 16, 2015

CHARLES LYTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JULIE LYTLE, Defendant-Respondent

2015 Opinion No. 13

Editorial Note:

This decision is not final until exception of the 21 day petition for rehearing period. Pursuant to rule 118 of the Idaho Appellate Rules.

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge. Hon. Michelle R. Mallard, Magistrate.

Order of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate court, affirming order denying motion for relief from judgment, affirmed.

Petersen, Moss, Hall & Olsen, Idaho Falls, for appellant. Nathan M. Olsen argued.

Denman & Reeves, Idaho Falls, for respondent. Reginald R. Reeves argued.

SCHWARTZMAN, Judge Pro Tem. Judge LANSING and Judge GUTIERREZ, CONCUR.

OPINION

Page 341

SCHWARTZMAN, Judge Pro Tem

Charles Lytle appeals from the district court's order on intermediate appeal, affirming the magistrate's denial of his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

On October 1, 1991, Charles Lytle filed for divorce from Julie Lytle. During the original divorce proceedings, Charles was a long-haul truck driver and did not have a permanent address. Julie filed an answer and counterclaim on October 17, 1991, in which she requested custody of, and support for, their minor child and that Charles " should be required to pay her maintenance in the sum of $1,500 monthly." Charles's counsel subsequently filed a motion to withdraw, which was granted on May 19, 1992. In the order allowing Charles's legal counsel to withdraw, Charles was given twenty days to file a written appearance. The order further notified Charles that failure to file and serve a written appearance would be a sufficient ground for entry of default and default judgment against him without further notice. Charles did not respond. On September ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.