The case, Milka v. Mile, involved Anita Milka, who sought additional time to conduct property appraisals before her divorce trial with William Milka.

According to court documents, Judge Denise L. Meagher had scheduled the trial for Dec. 5, 2023, in the Plymouth Probate & Family Court. though, on Nov. 15, Anita Milka’s attorney, Beyanid Montoya-Sheehan, filed a motion for a continuance, citing the need for property appraisals and a conflicting schedule on the trial date.

judge Meagher did not rule on the motion, leaving the original trial date in place. On Dec. 5, neither Anita Milka nor her attorney appeared in court, while William Milka and his legal counsel were present and prepared.

After a two-hour delay and unsuccessful attempts to contact Anita Milka and Beyanid Montoya-Sheehan, judge Meagher proceeded with the trial.On Jan. 10, 2024, she issued a divorce judgment that included a division of marital property based on the financial statements submitted by both parties.

Anita Milka subsequently filed two motions for relief from judgment, arguing that post-trial appraisals necessitated a reconsideration of the property division.She contended that relief was justified under the “excusable neglect” provision of Rule 60(b)(1) of the state’s civil and domestic relations rules.

Anita Milka asserted that her failure to appear was due to her attorney’s belief that the motion to continue did not require a hearing to be scheduled. She also claimed a denial of due process because the trial occurred in her absence.

Judge Meagher denied both motions.

In a ruling issued on May 20, the Appeals Court panel supported the trial court’s decision to deny relief from judgment.

The panel highlighted that Anita Milka and her attorney were aware of the trial date for several months, yet the motion to continue was filed only three weeks prior. The panel also noted that William Milka had opposed the motion.

Appeals Court Justifies Trial Court’s Ruling

“We disagree with the wife’s underlying premise that the mere filing of a motion to continue is enough to excuse a party’s presence at a scheduled trial …”

The Appeals Court panel stated, “Rather of preparing for trial in the event the motion was not allowed, the wife’s attorney took a different approach as acknowledged in her affidavit and the wife’s brief: the wife’s attorney believed the case was ‘not ripe for trial,’ ‘strongly believed’ the motion to continue would be allowed, knew that no action had been taken on the motion, advised the wife not to appear, and ‘flew to Colombia to see [her] father’ where she remained during the trial.”

The court further stated that “the trial judge could rationally view this conduct as inexcusably negligent or as a misguided effort to force a continuance by simply not appearing.”

The Appeals Court credited Judge Meagher for delaying the trial for two hours in hopes of receiving a response to a voicemail left with Beyanid Montoya-Sheehan, ultimately finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief from judgment.

The panel wrote, “We disagree with the wife’s underlying premise that the mere filing of a motion to continue is enough to excuse a party’s presence at a scheduled trial … We also discern no due process violation because the wife had ample ‘notice and the possibility to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,”‘ but she took the risk of not appearing on the scheduled date.”

Beyanid Montoya-Sheehan indicated that her client intends to seek further appellate review. She stated, “We had a written agreement with opposing counsel to continue the trial date to allow time to complete finding. After we reached said agreement, I obtained tickets to fly to Colombia to care for my father who was having health issues. The court was informed more than once, in writing, that I would not be available on the date of trial, and that discovery was far from being complete.”

Beyanid Montoya-Sheehan further claimed that william Milka’s counsel did not disclose the written agreement for a continuance to the court on the day of the trial. She added that the asset division in the divorce judgment is “almost entirely unenforceable” and leaves her client with limited means of support.

“My client’s constitutional right to due process has been violated,” Beyanid montoya-Sheehan stated. “She deserves her day in court.”

Catherine C. Murphy,representing William Milka,declined to comment,citing the ongoing litigation.