Sousa v. Sousa

Summary

The dissent would have held that the trial court plainly lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the parties’ final property distribution order six years after dissolution. It would have concluded that the doctrine favoring finality of judgments did not bar the defendant’s collateral attack because the statutory jurisdictional defect was entirely obvious. The dissent also criticized the majority for deciding an issue the parties had not raised without allowing supplemental briefing.