Summary 2010 WY 164

Summary of Decision December 15, 2010

[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 need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter 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: Egan v. Egan

Citation: 2010 WY 164

Docket Number: S-10-0065

URL: http://tinyurl.com/2bn4cy6

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, The Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Alex H. Sitz III of Meinecke & Sitz, LLC, Cody, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Kori Kae Egan, pro se.

Date of Decision: December 15, 2010

Facts: The district court allowed a significant deviation from Mother’s child support obligation.

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion by considering improper factors in allowing the deviation from the presumptive amount of child support; and erred in calculating Mother’s net income for purposes of calculating child support.

Holdings: The district court did not abuse its discretion by looking at Mother’s total situation, including her health condition, her family’s current finances and her practical ability to earn additional money. Also, while the district court cannot include subsequent spouses’ income in calculating the presumptive child support amount, the district court did not abuse its discretion by looking at a subsequent spouse’s contribution in considering the payor’s ability to pay in determining whether deviation is appropriate.

As to the issue of net income calculation, under the clear language of the statute, Mother was entitled to the health care coverage deduction regardless of whether Father was providing health insurance for their children or not. In contrast, given that the legislature did not include disability insurance premiums or flex plan contributions in stating the allowable deductions, it was error for the district court to deduct those amounts in calculating Mother’s net income. However, this small difference was not prejudicial and did not require reversal of the order.

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the court.