The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside portions of an earlier judgment relating to equalization, property division, and obligations concerning the matrimonial home.
The prior judgment followed an uncontested trial after the husband repeatedly failed to comply with court‑ordered financial disclosure despite explicit warnings that non‑compliance would permit the wife to proceed without him.
The husband relied on alleged health issues, financial hardship, and potential factual disputes affecting the equalization calculation.
The court held that the evidence did not justify invoking Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules or the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Because the information relied upon by the husband was available to him earlier and his persistent non‑compliance demonstrated a lack of diligence, the motion to set aside the order was dismissed.
