Summary 2013 WY 83

Summary of Decision July 10, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed.

Case Name: BRANDON LEE JENSEN v. MARGARET E. MILATZO-JENSEN

Docket Number: S-12-0279

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Brandon L. Jensen, pro se, of Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): No appearance.

Date of Decision: July 10, 2013

Facts: Appellant, Brandon Lee Jensen (Father), challenges an order from the district court holding him in contempt for failing to comply with an order awarding attorney’s fees to Appellee, Margaret E. Milatzo-Jensen (Mother).

Issues: The sole issue presented for our review is whether the district court’s contempt order must be set aside following reversal of the underlying order awarding attorney’s fees.

Holdings: We recently reversed the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to Mother in Jensen v. Milatzo-Jensen, 2013 WY 27, 297 P.3d 768 (Wyo. 2013) (Jensen I). As a consequence of our reversal of the underlying fee order, we conclude that the contempt order must also be set aside, and we reverse.

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Summary 2013 WY 27

Summary of Decision March 7, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Justice Burke concurred in part and dissented in part, with whom Chief Justice Kite joins.

Case Name: BRANDON LEE JENSEN v. MARGARET E. MILATZO JENSEN

Docket Number: S-12-0080, S-12-0083

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Brandon L. Jensen, pro se, of Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Wallace L. Stock and Lance T. Harmon of Bailey, Stock & Harmon P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: March 7, 2013

Facts: Brandon Lee Jensen, the appellant (Father), and Margaret E. Milatzo-Jensen, the appellee (Mother), divorced in 2007. In the litigation that followed the divorce, the district court granted Mother’s motion to modify the visitation schedule, denied Father’s request to present expert testimony, denied Father’s claims for child support abatement, denied Father’s petition to modify child support, partially reimbursed Father’s day-care expenses, and awarded attorney’s fees to Mother. Father now appeals those orders.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying Father’s visitation schedule? Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Father’s request to present the testimony of two expert witnesses? Did the district court err by denying Father’s claims for abatement of child support? Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Father’s Petition to Modify Child Support? Did the district court abuse its discretion by not fully reimbursing Father for day-care expenses? Did the district court abuse its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees against Father?

Holdings: Father’s move to Colorado, which substantially disrupted the visitation schedule and substantially impacted the child’s life, represented a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to address whether a modification in the visitation schedule would be in the best interest of the child. Because of the long and frequent commutes, and the stress incurred by the child, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a modification was appropriate. Father did not show on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in excluding an expert witness with a potential conflict of interest and limiting the testimony of another expert witness by permitting her only to testify with regard to matters in dispute. Father meets the statutory requirements for abatement in child support. We remand to the district court for a determination of the appropriate amount of that abatement. Because we affirm the modification to the visitation schedule, which results in a reduction in Father’s time with the child, Father is not entitled to application of the shared custody support calculation provided in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304(c). The district court abused its discretion by only partially reimbursing Father for day-care expenses because the divorce decree did not require Father to pay any day-care expenses while he was paying child support. The district court also abused its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees against Father because Mother presented insufficient evidence indicating that the fees requested were reasonable. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court for further appropriate action consonant herewith.

Justice Burke concurred in part and dissented in part, with whom Chief Justice Kite joins. See the full opinion for further comment.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Summary 2012 WY 59

Summary of Decision April 13, 2012

[SPECIAL NOTE:  This opinion uses the "Universal Citation."  It was given an "official" citation when it was 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:  CHIP DAVE v. BILL VALDEZ

Docket Number: S‑11‑0231

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465373

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant):  Michael W. Stulken of Mathey Law Office, Green River, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Richard H. Honaker of Honaker Law Offices, LC, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: April 13, 2012

Facts: Chip Dave (the appellant) purchased a car on eBay.  Before he took possession of the vehicle, the seller sold it to another buyer, Bill Valdez (the appellee).  The appellant filed a complaint against the appellee citing a number of causes of action, including replevin.  Following the appellee’s failure to respond to the appellant’s second amended complaint, a default judgment was entered and the appellant was granted a writ of replevin ordering the appellee to relinquish possession of the vehicle.  The appellant appealed the district court’s denial of an award of attorney fees. 

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying the appellant’s request for attorney fees?

Holdings: Following an entry of default against the appellee, the district court issued a writ of replevin requiring the appellee to relinquish possession of a vehicle previously purchased by the appellant, but the district court denied the appellant’s request for attorney fees.  The appellant appealed that denial, arguing that the American rule, requiring each party to pay his or her own attorney fees, was inapplicable.  The Court disagreed.  The statutory exception to the American rule applies only where the legislature has made it explicit that attorney fees will be allowed. The statute relied upon by the appellant makes reference only to damages.  The exception for certain replevin actions involving fraud is also inapplicable.  This exception only allows for attorney fees when the replevin action was initiated fraudulently.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s request for attorney fees.  Affirmed.

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.