William C. and Elaine Gaskins - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
               Unreasonable Protraction of Proceedings                                
               When this consolidated case was called from the calendar for           
          trial on June 6, 1994, that was the fourth time the case had been           
          noticed for trial.  Attorney Riley's failure to comply with this            
          Court's Standing Pre-Trial Order and to prepare these cases for             
          trial for that June 6, 1994 trial session is detailed above.                
          Respondent's motion to dismiss all issues as to which petitioners           
          had the burden of proof for failure properly to prosecute was               
          granted because of such failure.  The Court set the case for                
          trial on June 13, 1994, on the fraud issues as to which                     
          respondent had the burden of proof.  Attorney Riley then filed a            
          motion to set aside the default which was heard on June 10, 1994.           
          In the course of oral argument on that motion, the parties met              
          during a recess and settled the deficiency and fraud issues                 
          involving petitioner husbands, leaving only the innocent spouse             
          issues remaining.  The Court accepted the parties' settlement,              
          vacated the prior dismissal, and set a schedule looking to the              
          trial of the innocent spouse issues.                                        
               That did not, however, end the delays.  Attorney Riley's               
          delays in furnishing documents continued right up to and even               
          during the trial itself.  On or about June 24, 1994, Attorney               
          Riley began to provide the relevant documents, and his production           
          of documents continued intermittently up to and even during trial           
          itself.  The Court's intervention was required to effectuate this           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011