Summary 2007 WY 180

Summary of Decision issued November 13, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: Richard v. Richard

Citation: 2007 WY 180

Docket Number: S-07-0038

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): William R. Fix and Jenna V. Mandraccia of William R. Fix, PC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Lea Kuvinka of Kuvinka & Kuvinka, PC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied the Husband’s Motion to Vacate and Reset Hearing. Whether the district court erred in denying Husband’s Rule 60(b) motion.

Facts/Discussion: Husband sought review of an order of the district court that denied his motion for relief from the decree of divorce entered by the district court.
Denial of Motion for Continuance: The trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying a motion for continuance, and absent a manifest abuse of discretion, the reviewing court will not disturb such a ruling. Husband relied on Abraham where the Court held it was an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process to hold a hearing on a motion for summary judgment before the deadline for discovery had passed. The circumstances of Husband’s case differ from Abraham. The Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance.
Denial of Rule 60(b) Motion: The district court’s order stated only that the motion was denied. Husband contended that the district court’s reliance on Section 17 of the agreement was misplaced. The Court noted that the district court may be affirmed on any valid basis appearing in the record. Husband’s assertion of error evaporated completely when the documentation in the record was taken into consideration. Courts favor property settlement agreements. The Court examined the settlement agreement entered into by the parties prior to their divorce. The parties acknowledged as a part of the agreement that it was fair and just and the evidence in the record bore that out.

Holding: The district court did not err in denying Husband’s motion for a continuance nor did the district court err in denying Husband’s Rule 60(b) motion.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2qo6he .