Dickson v. Dickson

In situations in which a party puts itself in a position of needing to seek the services of a different attorney before or during trial, a court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance.

Wife appealed a judgment for distribution of martial property and attorney’s fees. Wife argued the trial court erred in denying her motion to set aside the property division trial and requested a continuance to obtain new counsel. At the time the Wife requested the continuance, she was in the process of employing her sixth lawyer. Wife’s third, fourth, and fifth lawyers requested to withdraw due to difficulties in working with the Wife. The record reflected that many of the deposition and discovery delays were due to Wife’s conduct, which included not showing up to a deposition and instructing her attorney not to appear on her behalf. The trial court denied the motion for continuance because it was evident that the Wife’s inability to cooperate was unlikely to be resolved with a sixth lawyer. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Affirmed.