From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vodopia v. Vietor

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Sep 20, 1966
222 A.2d 646 (D.C. 1966)

Opinion

No. 3893.

Submitted June 13, 1966.

Decided September 20, 1966.

APPEAL FROM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, JOSEPH C. WADDY, J.

Lynn O. Coombs, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Walter W. Johnson, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.


Appellee obtained an annulment of her marriage to appellant on the ground that his previous marriage had not been legally terminated. Custody of their minor child was awarded to the child's maternal grandmother, and appellant was ordered to make monthly payments for support of the child.

Although appellant in an amendment to his answer had alleged that appellee was mentally unfit to have custody of "their minor child" and asked that custody be given to appellant's sister and brother-in-law, ten months after final judgment, and while in arrears in support payments, appellant filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment "in part," alleging that he was not the father of the child. He alleged that his motion was based upon "facts newly developed." This appeal is from a denial of that motion.

We can only construe the allegation of "newly developed facts" to mean newly discovered evidence, and a motion on that ground, under the trial court's Rule 60(b)(2), must be filed within three months after judgment. The trial court properly denied the motion.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Vodopia v. Vietor

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Sep 20, 1966
222 A.2d 646 (D.C. 1966)
Case details for

Vodopia v. Vietor

Case Details

Full title:Gugliemo Chesaere VODOPIA, Appellant, v. Jeanne VIETOR, Appellee

Court:District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date published: Sep 20, 1966

Citations

222 A.2d 646 (D.C. 1966)