Daniel v. Moore

Because I conclude the trial court did not err in not voiding the consent judgment and denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, I respectfully dissent.

In the case sub judice, the trial court found Rhodes consented to the judgment pronounced by the court, and that

Rhodes[] did at one time after September 9, 2002, tell. . . defendants’ attorney that she was no longer representing the plaintiffs, but, thereafter, she continued to confer with ... defendants’ attorney concerning the details of the consent judgment and sent plaintiffs a proposed copy of the consent judgment, which indicates that…