Summary 2006 WY 19

Summary of Decision issued February 2, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Rodenbaugh v. Miller

Citation: 2006 WY 19

Docket Number: 05-94

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): James K. Lubing of James K. Lubing Law Office, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Jill Dean LaRance of LaRance & Syth, PC, Billings, Montana.

Date of Decision: February 2, 2006

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion when it determined that a substantial change of circumstances warranting a modification of child support did not exist when it did not examine Appellee’s cash flow, ability to pay and total financial situation.

Holdings: The process of review when child support is the issue is abuse of discretion. Child support guidelines identify a base from which the judge must invoke the exercise of discretion. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-311 forms the centerpiece of Appellant’s argument. The amount of child support owed by a parent is calculated by examining each parent’s “income” and thereafter determining each parent’s “net income” as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-303(a)(iii). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-308 requires reliable and accurate financial affidavits and disclosures by parents. A significant problem in this case is that the Court was not certain whether the parties and the district court were on the right page of the right statutes. It appears that Appellee’s income was not calculated in the manner required by the governing statutes and applicable case law. It also appears that perhaps too much income was attributed to Appellant. The Court reviewed the district court record and concluded that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were not supported by the record. The district court’s conclusions were contrary to the great weight of the evidence. They were not drawn from objective criteria, and the district court did not exercise sound judgment with regard to what is correct under the circumstances and did so arbitrarily and capriciously.

The case was reversed and remanded.

C.J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to case: http://tinyurl.com/ajap7 .