Opinion
Record No. 0234-94-1
Decided: January 31, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Alan E. Rosenblatt, Judge
Sheila M. McLaughlin for appellant.
I. Lionel Hancock, III (Bohannon, Bohannon Hancock, P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Elder
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Because we hold that the trial court erred in denying Mrs. Roychowdhury a continuance to enable her to employ counsel, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for retrial.
The granting or denial of a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Autry v. Bryan, 224 Va. 451, 454, 297 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1982). However, the denial of a continuance is grounds for reversal if it "seriously imperils the just determination of the cause." Mills v. Mills, 232 Va. 94, 96, 348 S.E.2d 250, 252 (1986). This is especially true when nothing indicates that the movant's purpose is to delay or evade trial. Id.
Mrs. Roychowdhury represented that she was financially unable to employ counsel, that she wanted counsel, that she was to receive a fund of money that would permit the employment of counsel, and that she had arranged for counsel willing to take the case when those funds were in hand. The continuance that she sought was to permit that arrangement and would not have unduly delayed the case. Mr. Roychowdhury offered, and the trial court suggested, no alternative to this arrangement. Under those circumstances, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance.
Because the other issues raised on appeal must be readdressed in the context of proper representation and pleading, we do not address those issues at this time.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for retrial.
Reversed and remanded.