Wagner v. Wagner, 299 P.3d 170

Felicia and Richard Wagner, pro se, sought a divorce; trial was scheduled multiple times.
Richard absent from all hearings; he verbally requested continuances via the court’s judicial assistant.
The superior court denied continuances without assessing whether Richard had good cause, and proceeded to trial in Richard's absence.
Felicia testified on the record; the court based findings and a divorce decree largely on Felicia’s testimony.
The court later denied Richard’s reconsideration and the court’s absence ruling did not consider Richard’s asserted work-related good cause.
On appeal, the court remanded to determine whether Richard’s absence was voluntary or supported by good cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court must consider good cause before denying a continuance.	Wagner argues the court should have weighed good cause due to his wildfire-related work obligations.	Wagner’s absence was voluntary; awareness of trial date indicated no good cause.	Remanded to determine if good cause existed; vice versa, absence may be involuntary.
Whether denial of continuance and proceeding to trial violated Richard’s rights as a pro se litigant.	Richard lacked proper procedure but relied on pro se status and past informal continuance requests.	Court failed to inform proper procedures but Richard bore responsibility to follow rules.	Remand to assess good cause; outcome depends on whether absence was truly involuntary.

Azimi v. Johns, 254 P.3d 1054 (Alaska 2011) (continuance denial reviewed for prejudice when illness or related factors exist)
Siggelkow v. Siggelkow, 643 P.2d 985 (Alaska 1982) (presence at trial informs prejudice assessment in continuance rulings)
Shooshanian v. Dire, 237 P.3d 618 (Alaska 2010) (pro se litigants entitled to fair process; flexibility in applying rules)
Oaks v. Grocers Wholesale, Inc., 377 P.2d 1001 (Alaska 1963) (default judgment context; notice and scope of relief matter for default judgments)
Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66 (Alaska 1987) (pro se litigants and procedural fairness; informs duty to inform)