Marriage of Haynes
Melvin Haynes, appearing in propria persona, appeals from a judgment dissolving his marriage to Carmen Haynes and dividing the parties’ property.[1] He contends that despite what he believed to be an agreement by the parties that the date of their separation was December 18, 1993, Carmen was allowed to surprise him at trial by presenting evidence and argument that the date of separation was actually “sometime in 2008†and that the court erred by prohibiting him from rebutting this new theory. He also argues that the court applied an incorrect legal standard to determine the date of separation and ignored relevant evidence that supported an earlier date of separation. Finally, he argues that the court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration, which relied on additional evidence not presented at trial. The record demonstrates, however, that Melvin was given sufficient notice of Carmen’s contention and that he did not object to her argument or evidence at trial or request a continuance to present additional responsive evidence. The trial court applied the proper standard in determining the date of separation and substantial evidence supports the court’s finding. For these reasons, among others, the court did not err in denying Melvin’s motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
Comments on Marriage of Haynes