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 2007 WY 207

Summary of Decision issued December 28, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: Opitz v. Opitz

Citation: 2007 WY 207

Docket Number: S-07-0015

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Gibson Sean Benham, Casper, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Keith Robert Nachbar, Casper, Wyoming

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion by imputing income to Appellant in determining his child support obligation. Whether the district court violated Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-307(b) (2007) by failing to set forth specific findings for deviating from Wyoming’s presumptive child support guidelines. Whether Appellee should be awarded her attorney’s fees for this appeal.

Holdings: While a district court may exercise discretion in establishing child support, that discretion is guided by the applicable statutory provisions. In Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304, the legislature established guidelines for calculating child support, based on factors including the parents’ respective incomes, custody arrangements, and the number of children. A court may deviate from the presumptive child support . . . upon a specific finding that the application of the presumptive child support would be unjust or inappropriate in that particular case. In considering whether to deviate from the presumptive child support, a court is required to consider a number of listed factors.
Husband claimed that the district court, in imputing to him the higher income from his previous position, ignored clear and undisputed evidence that his current employment was temporary. The decision to impute income rests on Husband’s “potential earning capacity.” Evidence in this case showed that Husband was well-qualified to be an automobile painter by his prior experience, job history, and training. There was evidence that such positions were available in the area, and in particular, that he could have continued working for his former employer. The prevailing wage was established by the salary Husband actually earned in that position. Husband suggested that he quit because his “body couldn’t – couldn’t do it,” but he provided no medical evidence and he later testified that he had not missed any work because of health problems or physical restrictions. In light of the statutory factors the district court was required to consider, this evidence amply supported a finding that Husband was realistically able to earn the higher income, and that he was voluntarily underemployed. Additionally, the district court also closely tailored its child support decision to Husband’s particular circumstances. The record demonstrated that the district court drew rational conclusions from objective criteria, and exercised sound judgment under the circumstances. There was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision.
Husband further contended that the district court failed to set forth specific findings justifying its deviation from the presumptive child support guidelines. In its Decree of Divorce in the instant case, the district court wrote that the child support amount represented a deviation from the child support guidelines and that it was appropriate to deviate from the actual income of the parties pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-307 and to impute income to Husband because he left his job as an automobile painter voluntarily and was now voluntarily underemployed. The decree did not explicitly use the words “unjust or inappropriate” to justify the decision. If it was clear from the findings that the district court determined that applying the presumptive child support would be unjust or inappropriate, those specific words are not necessary. The district court’s decree is legally sufficient to comply with the statute.
Wife claimed that she was entitled to recover her attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal as permitted by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-111. But while there is the authority to award attorney’s fees to Wife, it will not be done in the instant case. The question of who pays the attorneys’ fees in a divorce action is a part of the property division and thus is within the discretion of the trial court. The district court ruled in this action that each party to this divorce should pay his or her own attorney’s fees. This decision was not challenged on appeal, and there is no reason to deviate from the district court’s formula.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ytxkcv .

By Kathy Carlson