Etienne v. Etienne
56 V.I. 686
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Chrystalia Etienne appealed a Superior Court order finalizing divorce from Ashley Etienne.
- Chrystalia was incarcerated May 2006–Aug. 24, 2009 and represented herself; Ashley was represented by counsel.
- A court-ordered mediation (Aug. 1, 2008) addressed custody, property, and support; a Settlement Agreement was signed Dec. 7, 2009.
- Chrystalia filed a motion (Dec. 16, 2009) seeking hearing on three remaining property claims.
- The Superior Court issued a final order (Oct. 18, 2010) incorporating the Settlement Agreement without addressing Chrystalia’s three unresolved issues.
- Chrystalia argued on appeal that she lacked sufficient time to retain counsel prior to the decree; the Superior Court denied a motion to vacate (Dec. 7, 2010) and Chrystalia appeals (Dec. 24, 2010).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was violated by not allowing time to retain counsel. | Etienne argues insufficient opportunity to hire counsel before final order. | Etienne was given a reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel; many chances existed. | No due-process violation; opportunity to retain counsel was reasonable. |
| Whether the issue was waived for failure to raise below. | Etienne preserved the issue for appeal by motion to vacate. | Waiver applies; issue not properly raised below. | Issue waived; merits not reached. |
| Whether the court properly addressed all property-distribution issues prior to the decree. | Three unresolved property issues should have been ruled on. | Court had addressed all issues; Settlement incorporated in decree. | Court did not err; all issues deemed resolved by decree. |
| Whether the appeal is timely under Rule 5 and related tolling. | Notice of appeal timely despite timing concerns. | Appeal untimely under Rule 5, but timeliness waived by lack of participation of Ashley. | Timeliness concerns waived; court addresses merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932) (civil right to counsel for due process in certain cases; overview of right to counsel)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (civil due process right to counsel where applicable)
- Gray v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 792 F.2d 251 (1st Cir. 1986) (civil litigants’ right to retained counsel; due process standard)
- Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1980) (civil due process; distinction between civil and criminal counsel rights)
- Anderson v. Sheppard, 856 F.2d 741 (6th Cir. 1988) (civil litigants’ right to counsel; retained counsel to satisfy due process)
- United States v. Michelle's Lounge, 39 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 1994) (civil due process; reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel)
- Rojas v. Two/Morrow Ideas Enters., Inc., 53 V.I. 684 (V.I. 2010) (final order; appealability of final decree)
- Harvey v. Christopher, 55 V.I. 565 (V.I. 2011) (final order review authority)