Kerns v. Dura Mechanical Components

Appellant questions the trial courts refusal to vacate a 1997 divorce judgment, contending on appeal that evidence of a hurried stipulation and judgment compel reopening portions of the judgment concerning child care arrangements. Contradicting appellants assertions of fact, the trial court found that respondent had not committed abusive acts that tainted the 1997 stipulation of the parties and judgment. There being no showing that this finding was clearly erroneous, we affirm the trial courts refusal to reopen the judgment. Appellants appellate argument prompts our effort to clarify the already-established standards governing vacation motions.