Summary 2008 WY 106
Summary of Decision issued September 8, 2008
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Case Name: Wolfe v. Largent
Citation: 2008 WY 106
Docket Number: S-07-0259
Appeal from the
Representing Appellant: Larry W. Harrington, Harrington Law Firm, PC,
Representing Appellee: William D. Hjelmstad,
Facts/Discussion: Wolfe and Largent divorced in
Because Largent did not request a hearing to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order within 20 days of personal service, that order was confirmed by operation of law. Largent sought relief from the default judgment pursuant to W.R.C.P. 55(c) and 60(b). According to the W.R.C.P. 1, the district court had jurisdiction to determine Largent’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The trial court concluded at the hearing that any prejudice to Wolfe was nominal noting that it was an action to collect arrearages where the children were long ago emancipated. Wolfe failed to demonstrate and had not alleged that her ability to litigate the case was compromised between the time the default judgment was entered and the hearing on the merits. The Court found no error in the district court’s determination that Wolfe was not prejudiced by vacation of the default judgment.
Largent asserted several defenses, including that the amount of arrearages claimed were incorrect. The evidentiary record supported the district court’s conclusion that Largent demonstrated a meritorious defense.
Wolfe’s bare assertion that the district court incorrectly found Largent’s negligence non-culpable was insufficient to convince the Court that the district court erred in setting aside the default judgment.
Wolfe contended that the district court erred in failing to enter an order determining the proper amount of arrearages and interest after providing Largent with credit for all payments made. Largent did not contest the validity of the divorce decree instead he asserted that the amount claimed was incorrect. The district court determined that the total support obligation requested was not proper and denied confirmation and enforcement of the divorce decree in its entirety. The Court stated that the decision was not reasonable under the circumstances. On remand, the district court must determine the proper amount of arrearages still owed. After deducting any amounts that cannot be collected due to the applicable statute of limitations, the district court must calculate interest due on the remaining amount and enter an appropriate order confirming and enforcing the
Holding: The Court found no error in the district court’s decision to set aside the default judgment. However, it concluded that the district court erred in its decision to deny confirmation and enforcement of the decree. It reversed the Order Denying Motion for Confirmation and Enforcement of Child Support Order and Arrearages and remanded.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
J. Burke delivered the decision.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/5zj887 .
No comments:
Post a Comment