Summary 2013 WY 115

Summary of Decision September 27, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: CARL S. OLSEN v. CANDY M. OLSEN

Docket Number: S-13-0033

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

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

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

Representing Appellee: No appearance.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2013

Facts: Appellant, Carl S. Olsen, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to modify the custody of his three children. He also challenges the district court’s finding that he was in contempt of court for failing to comply with the divorce decree.

Issues: The issues presented by Mr. Olsen, reworded for the sake of clarity, are as follows: Did the district court abuse its discretion when it determined there was no material change in circumstances? Did the district court deny due process to Mr. Olsen? Did the district court abuse its discretion by failing to give paramount consideration to the best interests of the children? Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding certain costs to Ms. Olsen? Did the district court improperly fail to consider contradictory testimony? Did the district court abuse its discretion when it found Mr. Olsen in contempt?

Holdings/Decision: We conclude that the evidence in this record, along with the inferences reasonably drawn from that evidence, supports the district court’s finding that Mr. Olsen willfully violated the court’s order. The district court’s decision is affirmed

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 2011 WY 41

Summary of Decision March 9, 2011

[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: Walters v. Walters

Citation: 2011 WY 41

Docket Number: S-09-1052, S-10-0059

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461804

Appeal from the District Court of Larame County, Honorable Michael K. Davis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Kristin Shaun Wilkerson of Trent & Wilkerson Law Office, Laramie, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Mary T. Parsons of Parsons & Cameron, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Date of Decision: March 9, 2011

Facts: The two appeals consolidated for decision in this opinion arise out of the divorce litigation between Appellant and Appellee. In appeal No. S-09-0152, Appellant challenges the district court’s property distribution set forth in the Judgment and Decree of Divorce. In appeal No. S-10-0059, Appellant appeals from the district court’s order in the post-divorce proceeding that found her in civil contempt and imposed sanctions.

Issues: Appeal No. S-09-0152

Whether the district court abused its discretion, commit serious procedural error and/or violate a principle of law by finding Appellant in contempt. Whether the district court abuse its discretion by punishing Appellant through its distribution of property. Whether the district court’s division of marital property was clearly erroneous, against the great weight of evidence, and/or otherwise not supported by substantial evidence.


Holdings: The record is clear that Appellant violated a court order in this case. The Court entered a mutual restraining order which would have prevented either party from expending substantial funds of the marital estate without a further order of the Court. Despite this order, Appellant used funds to build a home after it was entered. Appellant never asked the Court to authorize the expenditures. It has therefore been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant willfully violated a court order and is in contempt of court. The district court did not explicitly impose a punishment or sanction on Appellant, but rather explicitly reserved sanctions “which may be imposed in the event of failure to comply with any of the divorce decree’s conditions.” Thus the district court did not punish her contemptuous conduct by awarding certain undisclosed property to Appellee in the division of marital property. Appellant is unable to indicate what property was awarded to him as punishment. The district court has considerable discretion to form a distributive scheme appropriate to the peculiar circumstances of the individual case including the respective merits and credibility of the parties. Both parties presented evidence about the origin and value of the marital property in question and the district court properly considered that evidence in making the property division. A review of the record shows that that the district court could reasonably conclude as it did when dividing the property and that it is equitable from the perspective of the overall distribution of marital assets and liabilities.

The Judgment and Decree of Divorce is affirmed.


Issues: Appeal No. S-10-0059

Whether Appellee proved that Appellant violated court orders issued in the divorce proceedings. Whether the district court abused its discretion, committed procedural error, or violated a principle of law by finding Appellant in civil contempt of court and awarding compensatory damages of $10,000.00.


Holdings: Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence concerning the alleged violations the district court concluded that the Appellee had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant willfully failed to return the property and documents that she had been ordered to return to Appellee in the divorce decree. The district court was in the best position to assess the witnesses’ credibility and weigh their testimony. A review of the entire record shows that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. However, no evidence of Appellee’s actual losses was presented and, absent that, the sum of $10,000 awarded to him is speculative and arbitrary and, reluctantly, cannot stand. Consequently, the award is reversed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2010 WY 35

Summary of Decision issued March 23, 2010

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

Case Name: Hamilton v. Hamilton

Citation: 2010 WY 35

Docket Number: S-09-0135

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, the Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge.

Representing Appellant Pamela: W. Keith Goody, Cougar, Washington.

Representing Appellee Harry: John A. Thomas, Evanston, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Pamela was adjudged in contempt of court for violating a temporary order entered by the district court in her divorce case. She claimed the ruling was null and void because the district court did not follow the procedures required in a criminal contempt hearing.

Contempt – civil or criminal: The type of punishment to be imposed is the factor that decides whether a civil or criminal contempt has been committed. The basic purpose of the contempt order was to remedy the harm done to Harry and not to protect the public. The fact that Pamela can purge her contempt by paying the amount spent in violation of the order into a joint account suggests it is civil as well. Pamela is also required to pay Harry’s attorney fees. In divorce cases, the allowance of attorney fees is an exercise of the district court’s equitable powers and not a penalty. The Court reviewed the financial documents submitted but without a record of the hearing, the Court was unable to determine whether the spending they reflect was in violation or compliance with the temporary restraining order.

Conclusion: No order had been issued imposing punishment on Pamela. There was no final appealable order in her case therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yaz649b .

[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. Please 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2009 WY 142

Summary of Decision issued November 19, 2009

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

Case Name: Swain v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 142

Docket Number: S-08-0280

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Michael K. Davis, Judge.

Representing Appellant Swain: Diane M. Lozano, Wyoming State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Graham M. Smith, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Swain appealed the district court’s order denying him credit for time served on three separate probation revocation actions. He also appealed his conviction for indirect criminal contempt arising from his failure to comply with the district court’s order requiring him as a condition of probation to attend and complete an inpatient substance abuse treatment program.

Sentencing credit: Swain contended that his sentence was illegal because the district court did not give him credit for the time he served on the three probation revocation actions. The Court relied on Jackson v. State where it held that time spent in custody awaiting disposition of probation revocation proceedings must be credited against the probationer’s underlying sentence if the incarceration is directly attributable to the underlying criminal conviction. Like Jackson, the sole basis for Swain’s detention in each of the revocation proceedings was the accusation he had violated one or more conditions of his probation. No additional criminal charges were filed against Swain based on the alleged violations, and the justification for revoking probation was basically that Swain absconded from supervision and failed to report to and complete the Cheyenne Transitional Center’s program and the Cheyenne Transitions Residential Program. The Court also concluded that the time spent in custody pending resolution of the three revocation proceedings was directly attributable to his underlying battery conviction and consequently, he was entitled to credit against the underlying three-five year prison sentence.
Criminal contempt conviction: The Court focused on a procedural error in the contempt proceeding. Wyoming endorsed the Gompers “independent and separate proceeding” rule for indirect criminal contempt actions in Garber v. United Mine Workers of America. Proceedings in criminal contempts are independent criminal actions and should be conducted accordingly. The criminal contempt against Swain was not pursued as an independent criminal action. It proceeded as an aspect of the underlying criminal case in which the contempt arose bearing the same docket number as that case. This procedural misstep mandated the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the district court was never properly invoked.

Conclusion: The Court held that Swain was entitled to credit against his penitentiary sentence for the time he was detained pending resolution of the three probation revocation proceedings. The Court also held that his conviction for indirect criminal contempt cannot be sustained because the district court lacked jurisdiction over the contempt action.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: Access is currently limited to the Judiciary website link located here: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx .

[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. Please 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2007 WY 47

Summary of Decision issued March 16, 2007

[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. Please 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 with a citation using the Universal Citation form, 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: Greene v. Finn, Personal Representative of Estate of Greene

Citation: 2007 WY 47

Docket Number: 05-274

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Respondent): John M. Kuker and Matthew H. Romsa of Romsa & Kuker, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant/Petitioner): Mark A. Bishop and Melinda D. Oldaker of Bishop & Oldaker, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the instant appeal should be dismissed because Husband failed to file a supersedeas bond as ordered by the district court. Whether the district court committed a clear and grave abuse of discretion, committed a serious procedural error, or violated a principle of law in holding Husband in contempt of court for failing to comply with certain procedures of the divorce decree.

Facts/Discussion: Husband appealed from an order finding him in contempt of court for failing to abide by the terms of a property settlement and divorce decree.
Standard of Review: Under the Court’s established standard for the review of contempt orders in domestic relations cases, the Court will not disturb the decision of the district court absent a serious procedural error, a violation of a principle of law, or a clear and grave abuse of discretion. The Court reviews questions of law de novo, according no deference to the district court’s decision.
Supersedeas bond: The Estate argued that the appeal should be dismissed because Husband had not filed the bond that was ordered by the district court. The Court stated that Estate’s argument was not well grounded in the appellate rules or in the substantive law governing supersedeas bonds. The Estate relied on W.R.A.P. 1.03 and 4.01. However, the Court stated that supersedeas bonds are governed by W.R.A.P. 4.02. The bond was likely requested by the Husband to prevent enforcement of the judgment pendente lite which comports with the general definition and effect of a supersedeas bond. The Estate’s remedy upon Husband’s failure to file the bond would have been to proceed to execute on the judgment, rather than seek dismissal of the appeal. By the terms of the district court order, the supersedeas would not have stayed the effect of the judgment in regard to the personal property.
District Court abuse of discretion, procedural error or violation of principle of law: The Court reduced the issue to three questions: (1) what was Husband found in contempt of court for failing to do; (32) was Husband clearly ordered to do that which he was found to have failed to do; and (3) did the district court abuse its discretion. The district court found Husband did not turn over one-half of the couple’s artwork, that he did not deliver possession of the Lichvar furniture, that he did not deliver possession of the Blazer, that he did not pay certain taxes, that he did not pay alimony, and that he did not pay one-half of the amounts due under the couple’s American Express credit cards. The Court reviewed the divorce decree to answer the second question. The order of the district court was clear except for where it ordered Husband to pay the “American Express Platinum and Blue” while it ordered Wife to pay “Amex – Blue/Platinum.” After a review of the record, the Court stated the district court violated the fundamental principle that an order on which a judgment of contempt is based must be clear and unambiguous because the decree simply did not make it clear that Husband was obligated to pay one-half the American Express credit card debt.

Holding: The divorce decree clearly ordered Husband to deliver to Wife one-half of the artwork, the Lichvar furniture and the Blazer. It also clearly ordered him to pay the property taxes on the “Rabbit Ears” and “Smole” properties and to pay Wife alimony in the amount of $1200 per month for six months. He did none of those things, so the district court did not err in finding him in contempt of court for those failures, or in ordering delivery of the property and in entering judgment for amounts owed. The decree did not clearly order Husband to pay one-half of the American Express credit card debt and the district court erred in finding him in contempt for that alleged failure.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed as to the artwork, the Lichvar furniture, the Blazer, the property taxes, and the alimony. It is reversed as to the American Express credit card debt and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/329as4 .