Opinion
No. 2003-CA-002050-MR.
October 1, 2004.
Appeal from Scott Circuit Court, Honorable Paul F. Isaacs, Judge, Action No. 01-CI-00166.
J. Robert Lyons, Jr., Charles E. Ward, Woodward, Hobson Fulton, Llp, Lexington, Kentucky, brief for Appellant.
Michael D. Meuser, David T. Faughn, Miller, Griffin Marks, Lexington, Kentucky, brief for Appellee.
Before: BUCKINGHAM, DYCHE, AND SCHRODER, Judges.
OPINION
Edward W. Moore, Jr., appeals from a default judgment against him in favor of Robert E. and Beverly Grovert. He claims three errors; we find none, and affirm.
Moore's ex-wife, prior to their divorce, entered into an agreement with the Groverts for the purchase and partition between them of a farm in Bourbon County. Following the execution of the deeds to the Moores and the Groverts, the Groverts detected what they considered to be an inconsistency between the actual partition of the property and what they had agreed on with Mrs. Moore. The parties were unable to resolve the dispute, and the Groverts filed the present action seeking, among other relief, reformation of the deed to accurately reflect the prior agreement.
Although Edward Moore made no separate motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the answer/counterclaim filed on his behalf contained an allegation of that nature. Both Moores failed to cooperate with the routine discovery in the case. Edward failed to attend his own scheduled deposition and withheld documents requested by the Groverts; Barbara also failed to produce requested documents. The Groverts filed a motion to compel the production of the documents; neither of the Moores responded, and the trial court ordered production of the documents.
In the meantime, counsel for the Moores had been allowed to withdraw, and they were given 30 days to obtain new representation. The documents were not produced, and no new counsel appeared for the Moores. The Groverts filed a motion for a default judgment, which was granted. The judgment ordered reformation of the deed to conform to the allegations of the Groverts; the decision on other claims of the Groverts was deferred. CR 54.02 (1). Following the denial of a motion to set the judgment aside, this appeal was filed by Edward.
Edward first argues that the default judgment is void, as he received no notice of the motion. The address to which the motion was sent was the address in the record for Edward. He took no steps to change or correct that error, if it was, in fact, an error. It is a litigant's responsibility to have his correct address in the record, especially where, as here, he is not represented by counsel. Edward had failed in his other obligations to the court, such as appearing for a properly noticed deposition. He has only himself to blame for not receiving the notice.
Edward next asserts that the complaint stated no cause of action against him. We disagree. As the judgment found, the complaint sufficiently set forth a cause of action for reformation of the deed. That is the extent of the relief granted so far. We need not deal with whether money damages can be recovered from him, as none have been granted the Groverts to this point.
Edward's final argument is that the discovery sanctions involved only Barbara, and not him. We disagree. He failed to appear for his deposition, and was under court order to produce certain documents. If he had a reason not to comply, he had an obligation to raise the objection, not merely ignore the court's order. Again, he brought the trouble onto himself by his failure to participate in the defense of this action.
The judgment of the Bourbon Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.