Summary 2014 WY 23

Summary of Decision February 20, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DANIEL L. STEVENS v. KACIE J. STEVENS

Docket Number: S-13-0125

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

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

Representing Appellant: John P. Worrall of Worrall & Greear, P.C., Worland, WY

Representing Appellee: George Simonton, Cody, WY

Date of Decision: February 20, 2014

Facts: In his appeal from a divorce decree, Father challenges the district court’s property division, alimony award, child support determination, and custody award.

Issues: Father states the following five issues for our consideration: 1.The District Court abused its discretion in the division of property between the parties in this matter. 2. The District Court abused its discretion in determining to award alimony to the Appellee. 3. The District Court abused its discretion in failing to determine that the Appellee was voluntarily under employed (sic) as a hostess at a local restaurant rather than at her chosen profession as a Certified Public Accountant and in other ways in calculating child support. 4. The District Court abused its discretion in determining the custody and visitation of the minor children in this matter. 5. The District Court abused its discretion in reaching its decision in this matter as a whole.

Holdings/Conclusion: There was no singular, or cumulative, abuse of discretion by the district court. The property division stands as does the award of alimony to Mother. Custody and child support both track the statutory guidelines provided. Any deficiencies in the initial decision letter were remedied by follow up addendums and the final divorce decree. The trial court’s decision, in all aspects, 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 2013 WY 136

Summary of Decision October 31, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JUDY E. BREDTHAUER v. DAVID J. BREDTHAUER

Docket Number: S-13-0114

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

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

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

Representing Appellee: James A. Eddington of Jones & Eddington Law Offices, Torrington, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: October 31, 2013

Facts: The appellant and her husband sought a divorce and the matter proceeded to trial. Neither party timely requested the official court reporter to report and transcribe the proceeding pursuant to Rule 904 of the Uniform Rules for District Courts. Consequently, the official court reporter was unavailable for trial. Although the parties arranged for alternative court reporters to attend, the district court would not permit any resulting transcript to be considered an official transcript. The trial was held without a court reporter present, a divorce decree later issued, and this appeal followed. The appellant challenges the divorce decree and order denying her motion for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred by refusing to allow the trial proceedings to be transcribed by an unofficial court reporter.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion by not permitting an unofficial court reporter to prepare an official transcript after the appellant did not timely notify the official court reporter of the proceeding as required under Rule 904 of the Uniform Rules for District Courts?

Conclusion: The district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the appellant to use a substitute court reporter to transcribe the proceedings and prepare an official transcript, but we affirm because the appellant was not prejudiced by the ruling.

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 2013 WY 131

Summary of Decision October 17, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: THOMAS P. CAMPBELL v. TAMMIE J. HEIN, f/n/a TAMMIE J. CAMPBELL

Docket Number: S-13-0042

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County the Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge

Representing Appellant: Christopher M. Wages of Goddard, Wages & Vogel, Buffalo, WY.

Representing Appellee: Brooke M. Barney of Barney & Graham, LLC, Sheridan, WY.

Date of Decision: October 17, 2013

Facts: Thomas Campbell (Husband) and Tammie Hein (Wife) were divorced in 2008 pursuant to a stipulated Property Settlement, Child Custody, Child Support Agreement. In 2010, Husband petitioned to reopen the Decree of Divorce, alleging that Wife had misrepresented material facts related to the parties’ division of debt. The district court denied Husband’s petition, and Husband appeals.

Issues: Whether the District Court erred when it entered its Order Denying Petition to Reopen Decree of Divorce and Counterclaim, dated November 30, 2012, and denied Defendant’s Petition to Reopen Decree of Divorce.

Holdings/Conclusion: We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to grant Husband’s petition to reopen the parties’ divorce decree. 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 2013 WY 126

Summary of Decision October 11, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Case Names: ANGELA S. BAGLEY v. CAMERON KDELL BAGLEY

CAMERON KDELL BAGLEY v. ANGELA S. BAGLEY

Docket Numbers: S-12-0276; S-12-0277

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

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

Representing Appellant in Case No. S-12-0276: Jack D. Edwards of Edwards Law Office, P.C., Etna, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee in Case No. S-12-0276: Bret F. King of King & King, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: October 11, 2013

Facts: The district court granted Angela S. Bagley (Wife) a divorce, divided the parties’ property, determined child custody, and ordered Cameron Kdell Bagley (Husband) to pay child support. Both parties appealed. Wife claims the district court erred by refusing to award her child support for their adult disabled daughter because Wife was already receiving Social Security benefits for her. She also argues the district court erred in determining Husband’s net income for the purposes of calculating child support for the parties’ two minor children. Husband, on the other hand, contests the district court’s division of the parties’ property.

Issues: Wife presents the following issues on appeal: I. Did the district court err in concluding that [Husband] had no obligation to personally provide support for his adult daughter who suffers from mental and physical disabilities? II. Did the district court err in calculating [Husband’s] net monthly income for purposes of calculating child support?

Husband asserts those aspects of the district court’s rulings were correct, but queries: I. Did the district court err and abuse its discretion in its division of marital property by awarding [Wife] a money judgment of $149,500? II. Did the district court err and abuse its discretion by determining the value of the horseshoeing business to be $40,000? III. Did the district court err when it failed to provide an appropriate schedule of payments on the money judgment award?

Wife contends the district court’s division of the marital property was correct.

Holdings: After careful analysis and discussion of the support, property, residence and payment schedule the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed, as corrected in part and reversed and remanded in part.

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 2013 WY 121

Summary of Decision October 2, 2013

District Judge Day delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JESSICA L. TAFOYA v. PAUL W. TAFOYA

Docket Number: S-13-0011

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Zenith S. Ward and Curtis B. Buchhammer, Buchhammer & Kehl, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: October 2, 2013

Facts: Jessica L. Tafoya (Mother) and Paul W. Tafoya (Father) divorced in 2012. In the divorce decree, the trial court awarded Father (living in Wyoming) primary custody of the parties’ child with liberal visitation to Mother (living in New Mexico). Upon Father’s motion, the reviewing district court[1] later entered an order clarifying the decree regarding who was obligated for transportation costs relative to visitation. Mother appeals from that order, claiming the order improperly modified or otherwise improperly clarified the divorce decree. Father maintains that the order did not amount to a modification and that the order correctly clarified the decree.

Issues: The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district court properly clarified the decree pursuant to W.R.C.P. 60(a).

Holdings: The Decree of Divorce incorporated a Standard Visitation Order. Taken together, the visitation cost provisions contained in the body of the decree and the visitation order presented a patent ambiguity. In its order granting Father’s motion to clarify, the district court properly employed Rule 60(a) to clarify the ambiguity and correctly clarified the decree according to the contemporaneous intent of the trial court. 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 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 2013 WY 112

Summary of Decision 27, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: SUSAN LYNN KUMMERFELD v. JOHN GARY KUMMERFELD

Docket Number: S-13-0028

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

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County the Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing Appellant: Mary Elizabeth Galvan of Galvan & Fritzen, Laramie, WY.

Representing Appellee: DaNece Day of Lubnau Law Office, P.C., Gillette, WY.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2013

Facts: In her appeal of the district court’s property allocation, Susan Lynn Kummerfeld (Wife) contends that the court erred when it only gave her 23% of the total assets, with the remainder going to her ex-husband John Gary Kummerfeld (Husband).

Issues: Wife states her single issue as follows: Whether the district court abused its discretion in the manner in which it divided the property between the divorcing parties by allocating 23% of the property to Wife and the remainder to Husband.

Holdings/Conclusion: Decisions regarding the division of marital property are within the trial court’s sound discretion, and we will not disturb them on appeal unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Here, the district court properly assessed the facts and considered each of the required factors in making its determination. We hold that there is no abuse of discretion. 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 2013 WY 101

Summary of Decision August 28, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed

Case Name: ZYGMUNT JOHN SAMIEC v. SUSAN KAY FERMELIA, f/k/a SUSAN KAY SAMIEC

Docket Number: S-12-0269

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County the Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellant: Jon Aimone of Lemich Law Center, Rock Springs, WY

Representing Appellee: Eric F. Phillips, Rock Springs, WY

Date of Decision: August 28, 2013

Facts: Father challenges an order interpreting divorce decree provisions that govern payment of counseling and medical expenses for the parties’ children.

Issues: On a stipulated case, did the District Court err in answering a question which it had not been asked to answer? Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Fathers’ Motion for Continuance to allow the presentation of evidence on the question, which the District Court answered but had not been asked to answer?

Holdings: 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 2013 WY 73

Summary of Decision June 17, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: AMY C. ROBERTS v. STEVEN LOCKE

Docket Number: S-12-0224

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

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Wendy S. Ross and Mary T. Parsons of Parsons & Associates, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Megan L. Hayes and Allen Gardzelewski of Corthell and King, P.C., Laramie, Wyoming

Date of Decision: June 17, 2013

Facts: Appellant Amy Roberts and Appellee Steven Locke divorced in mid-July of 2010. Among their marital assets was a beachfront property in Costa Rica. After a trial, the district court ordered the property sold and the proceeds divided, and later held Roberts in contempt for impeding the sale. She now appeals that order.

Issues: Roberts asks this Court to consider two questions, which we restate as follows: Did the district court have jurisdiction to order Roberts to convey the Costa Rican property to Locke so that he could sell it, with the proceeds of sale to be distributed as provided in the divorce decree? Did the district court abuse its discretion when it found Roberts in civil contempt of court?

In addition, Locke asks us to determine that Roberts lacked reasonable cause for her appeal, and to award him the costs and fees he has expended in responding.

Holdings: Roberts has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in holding her in contempt of court, or that the court lacked jurisdiction to order her to convey her interest in the Costa Rican property to Locke. We therefore affirm and, for the reasons set out above, will award Locke reasonable costs, fees, and damages under W.R.A.P. 10.05. Locke shall submit an appropriate application to this Court within fifteen days from the filing and publication of this opinion.

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 2013 WY 71

Summary of Decision June 6, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: LISA M. BARRETT OLIVER, f/k/a LISA M. QUAST v. MICHAEL G. QUAST

Docket Number: S-12-0219

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

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

Representing Appellant: Dameione S. Cameron of Cameron Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Laura J. Jackson of Jackson Law Firm, L.L.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: June 6, 2013

Facts: Michael G. Quast, the appellee, petitioned the district court for modification of his child support payments. At the hearing related to that petition, the appellee and Lisa M. Quast, the appellant, agreed that certain provisions related to the division of their children’s college tuition and extracurricular expenses contained in their property settlement and divorce agreement were in need of clarification. The district court modified the amount of child support owed by the appellee. Additionally, the district court determined that the appellant was voluntarily unemployed and imputed income to her for purposes of calculating the amount of income to attribute to each parent. The district court also added limitations to the college and extracurricular expense provisions. The appellant now appeals those decisions.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion by imputing income to the appellant? Did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying the terms of the Property Settlement and Child Custody Agreement?

Holdings: The appellant contends that the district court improperly imputed income to her in determining the new level of presumptive child support owed by the appellee and improperly modified provisions governing college tuition and extracurricular expenses contained in the property settlement and divorce agreement. The record on appeal lacks a transcript from the district court’s hearing on these issues. Without the transcript, we must accept as true the district court’s evidentiary findings. The appellant was unable to show that the district court abused its discretion. 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 2013 WY 45

Summary of Decision April 17, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: MEGAN B. GOLDEN, f/k/a MEGAN B. GUION v. TODD A. GUION

Docket Number: S-12-0196

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Megan B. Golden, pro se.

Representing Appellee: Robert W. Brown and Amanda K. Roberts of Lonabaugh & Riggs, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: April 17, 2013

Facts: The appellant, Megan B. Golden (Wife), appealed the district court’s order regarding the distribution of property following the divorce of the appellant and her former husband, the Appellee, Todd A. Guion (Husband). Wife argued that the district court abused its discretion when it divided property contrary to the evidence presented at the trial and when it failed to consider the financial condition in which the parties were left after the divorce. Husband claims that Wife’s brief is riddled with procedural errors, with the fatal error being the omission of the trial transcript from the record.

Issue: Did the district court abuse its discretion when it divided the property as it did in the divorce decree?

Holdings: Wife failed to comply with W.R.A.P 3.02(b) by failing to provide this Court with a transcript of the district court proceedings. Because this Court could not review the evidence, they could not find that the district court abused its discretion in how it divided the parties’ property. Further, because there was no transcript in the record, the Court could not certify that there was reasonable cause to bring this appeal and awarded reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to Husband pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.5

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 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 2013 WY 25

Summary of Decision March 5, 2013


Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: RAYMOND ALEXANDER VERHEYDT v. TAMMI WAI-PING VERHEYDT

Docket Number: S-12-0153

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, Honorable Nena James, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Galen Woelk of Aaron & Hennig, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Elizabeth Greenwood and Inga L. Parsons of Greenwood Law, LLC, Pinedale, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: March 5, 2013

Facts: Tammi Wai-Ping Verheydt (Wife) and Raymond Alexander Verheydt (Husband) were divorced by decree entered February 27, 2012. Husband appealed, claiming the district court abused its discretion in imputing his monthly income and ordering him to pay child support for several months when he was living in the marital home after Wife filed for divorce and ordering him to pay half the cost of the children’s past and future activities as an upward deviation of child support. Husband also contended the district court deprived him of due process in making the above rulings without evidentiary support.

Issues: Husband presents the issues for this Court’s determination as follows:

1. The District Court imputed income to [Husband] without evidence supporting its findings.

2. The District Court’s upward deviation in child support is not supported by evidence, and does not conform to Wyoming’s statutory requirements.

3. The District Court cannot order child support and an upward deviation to that support, for time in which a parent resides with his children.

4. The District Court deprived [Husband] of his right to due process when it entered an order having no evidentiary support.

Holdings: The Court found that Husband waived his right to assert these claims on appeal and affirmed the district court’s rulings.

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 154

Summary of Decision December 13, 2012

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE MODIFICATION OF THE MARK E. DOWELL IRREVOCABLE TRUST #1, dated the 16th of May, 2000: ELIZABETH L. DOWELL v. MARK E. DOWELL

Docket Number: S-12-0098

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable David B. Park, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Ann M. Rochelle of Rochelle Law Offices, P.C., Casper, Wyoming; Douglas McLaughlin of Law Office of Douglas R. McLaughlin, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Rochelle.

Representing Appellee: Judith Studer and Tassma A. Powers of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Studer.

Date of Decision: December 13, 2012

Facts: While he and Appellant Elizabeth (Betsy) Dowell were still married, Appellee Dr. Mark Dowell created an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) naming Ms. Dowell as its primary beneficiary and their two children as contingent beneficiaries. The couple divorced five years later. Six years after the divorce, Dr. Dowell filed a petition to modify the trust, in which he contended that he did not need to obtain Ms. Dowell’s consent to modify because she had relinquished her beneficial interest in the property settlement agreement incorporated into their divorce decree. The district court agreed. Ms. Dowell appealed from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Dr. Dowell.

Issues: Did Ms. Dowell waive her expectancy in an irrevocable life insurance trust by consenting to the terms of a property settlement agreement which was incorporated in the parties’ decree of divorce?

Holdings: Because the Dowell’s divorce decree falls short of the Cellers benchmark, it cannot be said to have divested Ms. Dowell of her status as the primary beneficiary of the ILIT as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court reversed the summary judgment granted to Dr. Dowell to the extent it determined that Ms. Dowell was not a qualified beneficiary whose consent was necessary to permit the trial court to judicially modify the ILIT. The Court also remanded and instructed the district court to grant Ms. Dowell’s summary judgment motion on that issue, as the record before the Court as a matter of law does not reflect an adequate waiver of her status as a qualified beneficiary of the ILIT.

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 127

Summary of Decision September 27, 2012

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DONNA RAY TEEPLES v. NEAL J. TEEPLES

Docket Number: S-12-0007

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, Honorable Nena R. James, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Richard Mathey of Mathey Law Office, Green River, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Weston W. Reeves and Anna M. Reeves Olson of Park Street Law Office, Casper, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2012

Facts:  Donna Ray Teeples, the appellant, was to receive a cash payment from her
ex-husband, Neal J. Teeples, the appellee, as a result of the division of their marital assets pursuant to a divorce.  The appellant claimed that the payment, made with the funds of an S corporation owned jointly prior to the divorce, impermissibly increased her tax liability and was made with funds that were rightfully owed to her as a prior shareholder in the company. 

Issues:  Did the payment received by the appellant satisfy the terms of the Property Settlement Agreement pursuant to the parties’ divorce?

Holdings:  The appellant received a payment from the appellee pursuant to their Property Settlement Agreement following their divorce.  The appellee paid the appellant with funds from an S corporation he received in the divorce.  The appellant contended that because she had previously been a shareholder in this S corporation, the payment constituted a dividend and impermissibly increased her income tax liability.  The Court disagreed.  The appellant was taxed properly on income earned by the S corporation due to her previous stake in the company.  The distribution did not increase her tax liability.  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 2012 WY 98

Summary of Decision July 19, 2012

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JOSHUA JORGEN HANSON v. MELANIE SMITH BELVEAL, f/n/a MELANIE ANN HANSON

Docket Number: S-11-0130, S-11-0131

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

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

Representing Appellant: Elizabeth Greenwood and Inga L. Parsons, Attorneys at Law, Pinedale, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Sky D. Phifer of Phifer Law Office, Lander, Wyoming

Date of Decision: July 19, 2012

Facts: These combined appeals arose out of post-divorce proceedings. In No. S-11-0130, Father appealed the district court’s order denying his petition to modify the parties’ divorce decree, which granted mother primary physical custody of their minor child, and to grant him primary physical custody of their child. In No. S-11-0131, Father appealed the district court’s order that he pay Mother $4,680 for attorney’s fees and costs that she incurred in defending Father’s petition to modify custody.

Issues: Father presented five issues for our review, which the Court has rephrased for the sake of simplicity as follows:

I. Whether the district court erred in finding unconstitutional a clause in the Stipulated Divorce Decree which provided that a move out of state by either party constituted a material change of circumstances sufficient to seek a modification of custody.

II. Whether the district court erred in finding there had not been a material change in circumstances to justify a change in custody

III. Whether the district court erred in finding that a modification of custody would not be in the best interests of the child.

IV. Whether the district court reversibly erred in admitting hearsay statements of the child’s treating physician and excluding certified copies of the criminal convictions of Mother’s brother and her current spouse.

V. Whether the district court erred in awarding Mother reasonable attorney fees.

Holdings: The clause in the parties’ divorce decree providing that either parties’ relocation outside Wyoming would constitute a material change of circumstances justifying consideration of custody modification was invalid as speculative, and the district court properly disregarded the provision. The Court further found Father was not prejudiced by the appealed evidentiary rulings, and found no clear error in the court’s determination that Father had not proven a material change of circumstances warranting a custody modification. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees and cost. 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 2012 WY 78

Summary of Decision June 4, 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: IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF SDL, AJL and GASL, Minor Children: SL, Appellant (Respondent), v. CAD, Appellee (Petitioner).

Docket Number: S-11-0268

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

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Pro se.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Farrah L. Spencer, Long, Reimer, Winegar, Beppler, LLP, Park City, Utah.

Date of Decision: June 4, 2012

Facts: Father and Mother were divorced in Colorado in 2008. Six children had been born of the marriage. Mother was granted custody of the children, and Father was ordered to pay $686.00 per month for child support. Mother married Stepfather in 2009, and the couple moved to Wyoming with the three youngest children. By that time, the oldest child had joined the military. The second child remained in Colorado, living with the family of a friend. The third child moved into Father’s home.

In 2011, Stepfather filed a petition with the district court to adopt the three youngest children. Mother consented to the adoption. The petition alleged that Father’s consent was not required because he had willfully failed to satisfy his child support obligations. Father responded to the petition for adoption, disputing that he was in arrears with his child support payments, and raising several other issues.

The district court held a hearing on the matter on September 22, 2011. It heard testimony from Stepfather, Mother, Father, Father’s brother, and the third child. The district court later issued an order granting Stepfather’s petition for adoption. Father appealed from that order. Father, SL, resisted the petition by Stepfather, CAD, to adopt SL’s three youngest children. The district court approved the adoption over SL’s objections, and SL appealed.

Issues: Father, who appears pro se in this appeal as he did in the district court, lists several issues: 1)Did the district court err in calculating the arrearages in Father’s child support payments? 2)Did the district court misapply Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304(e) (LexisNexis 2011) by failing to give Father credit for social security payments made directly to Mother as child support? 3)Did the district court err in finding Stepfather “fit and competent” to adopt the children? 4)Did the district court err in failing to consider information contained in Father’s answer to the petition for adoption, in Father’s proposed findings of fact following the hearing in this matter, and in a letter sent to the court by Stepfather’s attorney after the hearing? 5)Did the district court err in denying Father’s motions for visitation with the children?

Stepfather presented this statement of the issue: Did the district court abuse its discretion when it granted the petition for adoption?

Holdings: The district court’s decision was affirmedJustice Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2011 WY 90

Summary of Decision June 6, 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: Christiansen v. Christiansen

Citation: 2011 WY 90

Docket Number: S-10-0252

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=462423

Appeal from the District Court of Niobrara County, Honorable Keith Kautz, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Tracy L. Zubrod of Zubrod Law Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Mary Elizabeth Galvan of Galvan & Fritzen, Laramie, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Defendant): No brief filed.

Date of Decision: June 6, 2011

Facts: Appellant and Appellee Christiansen are both residents of Wyoming. They were legally married in Canada in 2008. Appellant filed an action for divorce in Wyoming in February 2010. The district court determined it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain an action to dissolve a same-sex marriage. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the action.

Issues:  Whether a WYoming district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to entertian a divorce action to dissolve a same-sex marriage lawfully performed in Canada.
Holdings: District courts are endowed with broad subject-matter jurisdiction. District courts in Wyoming are courts of superior and general jurisdiction. They derive their judicial powers from the Wyoming Constitution art. 5, § 1 which states “The judicial power of the state shall be vested in the senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, in a supreme court, district courts, and such subordinate courts as the legislature may, by general law, establish and ordain from time to time.” Wyo. Stat. 20-2-104 (2009) expressly places subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain divorce proceedings with the district courts. The pivotal question is whether the fact that this is a same-sex couple strips the district court of the subject-matter jurisdiction it would otherwise enjoy to entertain a divorce proceeding.

The district court found dispositive Wyo. Stat. 20-1-101, defining marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. Since a same-sex couple is incapable of entering into a marriage as defined by § 20-1-101, the district court reasoned there was no marriage to dissolve. However, Wyo. Stat. 20-1-111 (2009) provides that “[a]ll marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in this state.” The district court’s ruling thus creates a conflict between Wyo. Stat, 20-1-101 and 20-1-111.

Such a conflict does not exist in the context of a divorce proceeding. Wyo. Stat. 20-1-101 and 20-1-111, both relating to the creation of marriage, can coexist in harmony in the context of the instant divorce proceeding. Section 20-1-101 prevents a same-sex couple from entering into a marital contract in Wyoming. It does not speak to recognition of a same-sex marriage validly entered into in Canada. Section 20-1-111, on the other hand, expressly allows for the recognition of a valid Canadian marriage in Wyoming. On their face, the two sections treat different situations and as such do not conflict.

It is recognized that the rule set out in § 20-1-111 is not absolute. Under common law, this rule of validation is subject to certain recognized exceptions, namely, marriages which are deemed contrary to the law of nature as generally recognized in Christian countries, such as polygamous and incestuous marriages, and those which the legislature of the state has declared shall not be allowed any validity, because contrary to the policy of its laws. However, the policy exception is necessarily narrow, lest it swallow the rule. It is not enough that a marriage would not be valid if solemnized in Wyoming. Common law marriages provide a good example. Common law marriages entered into in this state are invalid. Yet, the validity of common law marriages entered into in foreign jurisdictions has been recognized for limited purposes. Likewise, recognizing a valid foreign same-sex marriage for the limited purpose of entertaining a divorce proceeding does not lessen the law or policy in Wyoming against allowing the creation of same-sex marriages. A divorce proceeding does not involve recognition of a marriage as an ongoing relationship. Indeed, accepting that a valid marriage exists plays no role except as a condition precedent to granting a divorce. After the condition precedent is met, the laws regarding divorce apply. Laws regarding marriage play no role.

Specifically, the parties are not seeking to live in Wyoming as a married couple. They are not seeking to enforce any right incident to the status of being married. In fact, it is quite the opposite. They are seeking to dissolve a legal relationship entered into under the laws of Canada. Respecting the law of Canada, as allowed by § 20-1-111, for the limited purpose of accepting the existence of a condition precedent to granting a divorce, is not tantamount to state recognition of an ongoing same-sex marriage. Thus, the policy of this state against the creation of same-sex marriages is not violated.

Two Wyoming residents are seeking a legal remedy to dissolve a legal relationship created under the laws of Canada. Nothing in Wyoming statutes or policy closes the doors of the district courts to them. The district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain their petition for divorce.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The court made it clear that its analysis was expressly limited to the issue before it. Nothing in this opinion should be taken as applying to the recognition of same-sex marriages legally solemnized in a foreign jurisdiction in any context other than divorce. The question of recognition of such same-sex marriages for any other reason, being not properly before the court, is left for another day

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2011 WY 59

Summary of Decision April 12, 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: Wunsch v. Pickering

Citation: 2011 WU 59

Docket Number: S-10-0004

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461954

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Matthew Giacomini and Andrew Reid, Springer and Steinberg, Denver, Colorado.

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

Date of Decision: April 12, 2011

Facts: The district court resolved a dispute between the parties concerning an amount of money Appellant owed Appellee pursuant to the provisions of their divorce settlement agreement regarding the distribution of fees from the financial services business they had operated and Appellant continued to operate.

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion by issuing an order compelling Appellant to produce documents that were irrelevant or not in his possession, custody, or control. After the district court entered default against Appellant as a sanction for failing to produce the documents as ordered, whether the district court erred as a matter of law by restricting Appellant’s participation in the subsequent hearing on damages. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s award of damages.

Holdings: WRE 401 provides that relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” If the account information sought by Appellee indicated that clients formerly invested in the parties’ joint accounts had moved those investments through Appellant’s individual account, that would tend to make it more probable that those joint accounts had been replaced and pursuant to the settlement agreement Appellee would be owed one half of the fees. To the extent the information related only to Appellant’s individual clients, that would tend to make it less probable that those accounts had been replaced. The district court could reasonably determine that the documents sought by Appellee were relevant. “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery.” W.R.C.P. 26(b)(1). The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the order to compel the production of these documents.

Appellant’s objection that the documents were not in his possession, custody, or control is unsupported by facts in the record. Although Appellant did not have client commission statements requested, he could have obtained copies from the parent company of his business. As to the tax records, it appears that Appellant did produce all of the requested information except for the tax returns and 1099 Forms for 2008. Appellant repeatedly represented that the 2008 tax returns were still being prepared, and so were not yet in existence. He asserted that his 1099 Forms for 2008 were unavailable for the same reason. From a practical standpoint, the assertion that the 1099 Forms for 2008 were still unavailable as of September 30, 2009, seems untenable. Moreover, in one hearing, Appellant’s counsel stated that “The 1099 for 2008 has been ordered and should be here,” another admission that the document was not beyond Appellant’s control.

After careful review of the record, it was not unreasonable for the district court to conclude that the documents requested by Appellee through discovery were relevant and within Appellant’s possession, custody, or control. It was not an abuse of discretion to issue an order compelling Appellant to produce the disputed documents.

Appellant claims that, during the hearing held on damages, the district court denied his right to participate in the proceedings by improperly prohibiting him from presenting evidence relating to the damages he owed Appellee. He asserts that the district court erred as a matter of law in restricting his participation in the hearing, and because this raises a question of law, it must be reviewed de novo. However, the record reflects that Appellant was afforded an opportunity to participate in the damages hearing, and that he did participate. The real basis of his complaint is that the district court excluded most of the evidence he sought to introduce at that hearing.

Because the effect of the entry of default was to establish that the disputed accounts had been replaced, evidence offered by Appellant to show that the accounts had not been replaced was irrelevant. Because the entry of default decided the issue of whether the accounts had been replaced, and decided it against Appellant, any evidence suggesting that the accounts had not been replaced was irrelevant, and the district court did not err in excluding it.

As with the previous issue, Appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s award of damages is based on a misconception of the effect of the entry of default against him. The default judgment amounted to a ruling that the inactive accounts had all been replaced by Appellant and Appellee would have been owed a portion of the fees for those accounts. Appellee was no longer required to prove that any of the accounts had been replaced. She merely had to prove what her damages were if all the accounts had been replaced. The calculation of the amount of fees Appellee would have been owed was done by the Administrator/Accountant who had been appointed during mediation to perform the accounting required under the settlement agreement for the purpose of establishing the “projected amount” Appellee would be owed if the accounts were all replaced. After the district court entered default establishing, in effect, that all the accounts were replaced, this evidence was sufficient to prove Appellee’s damages.

Affirmed.



J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

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.