Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves Wade Bloedow (Husband) and Nicole Maes-Bloedow (Wife), who married in 2017 and filed for divorce in 2022. The district court granted the divorce, divided the marital property, and ordered Husband to pay child support and temporary alimony. Husband appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in property distribution, income calculation for child support, and the award of temporary alimony. He also claimed the court failed to credit him for temporary payments made during the divorce proceedings.The District Court of Sweetwater County initially granted Wife temporary custody of the twins and ordered Husband to pay $3,000 per month in child and spousal support, plus the monthly payment on Wife’s vehicle. The court found Husband in contempt for not paying the full amount and allowed him to purge his contempt by selling marital assets and paying Wife from the proceeds. After a bench trial, the court awarded Wife most of the marital assets and assigned Husband most of the debts, citing his lack of credibility and fraudulent behavior in concealing and dissipating assets.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court found the district court acted within its discretion in determining the equity in the marital home and awarding Wife $75,000. It also upheld the overall property distribution, noting the district court considered the statutory factors and Husband’s fraudulent actions. The court found no abuse of discretion in the income calculation for child support, as the district court reasonably averaged Husband’s income from 2021 and 2022. The award of temporary alimony was also upheld, as the district court found Wife had a need for support and Husband had the ability to pay. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s decision on past due support payments, finding the district court properly credited Husband for payments made during the divorce proceedings. View "Bloedow v. Maes-Bloedow" on Justia Law

A police officer responded to a hotel where a mother, RN, was intoxicated and with her six-year-old son, JN. Due to her intoxication and the presence of a violent boyfriend at home, JN was taken into protective custody. RN tested positive for amphetamines and had a high blood alcohol content. The State filed a neglect petition, and JN was placed in foster care. The initial permanency plan was family reunification, and RN was required to follow a case plan that included maintaining sobriety and addressing her relationship with her boyfriend.The juvenile court held a shelter care hearing and placed JN in the State's temporary custody. RN made some progress but failed to maintain sobriety and continued her relationship with her boyfriend. The court extended the consent decree to allow more time for RN to comply with the case plan. However, RN missed drug tests, tested positive for methamphetamine, and failed to appear at a hearing, leading to the revocation of the consent decree and the adjudication of neglect. The permanency plan was updated to require inpatient drug treatment, but RN did not check into treatment until the day before the permanency hearing.The Wyoming Supreme Court previously reversed the juvenile court's order changing the permanency plan to adoption due to the lack of a reasonable efforts determination by the Department of Family Services (DFS). On remand, the juvenile court determined that DFS had made reasonable efforts based on the evidence from the original hearing and reaffirmed the change in the permanency plan. The court found that despite RN's bond with JN, her inability to maintain sobriety and provide a stable environment justified the change to adoption. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's decision, finding sufficient evidence that the change was in JN's best interests. View "RN v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case involves a divorce between Guy Morrison, III (Husband) and Tami Hinson-Morrison (Wife), who married in 2007. Before the marriage, they signed a premarital agreement stating that each party would retain their individual property, any property acquired from the proceeds or appreciation of their premarital property, and any property acquired by gift or inheritance. During the marriage, Husband formed three oil and gas companies and made various financial contributions to Wife's businesses and properties. Wife filed for divorce in 2022, leading to disputes over the interpretation and application of the premarital agreement and the equitable distribution of assets and debts.The District Court of Campbell County found the premarital agreement clear and unambiguous, except for its silence on commingling of funds. The court ruled that Husband's financial contributions to Wife's properties were spousal gifts and did not warrant compensation. The court divided the remaining marital assets and debts equitably, awarding Husband his businesses and other assets, while Wife retained her businesses and the marital home. The court also ordered the parties to file joint tax returns for 2021 and 2022 and bear their respective tax obligations proportionally.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the premarital agreement was clear and enforceable, and the district court correctly interpreted it without adding a commingling provision. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the equitable distribution of assets and debts, noting that the division left both parties in a comfortable financial position. The court declined to award Wife attorney fees, as the fee-shifting provision in the premarital agreement did not apply to the divorce proceedings. View "Morrison v. Hinson-Morrison" on Justia Law

In 2014, a woman and her two children from a previous relationship moved in with a man. They had a child together in 2018 and married in 2019. The man ran a trucking business, and the woman assisted with bookkeeping. She also worked briefly at a mental health facility and later as a secretary at a hospital. The couple separated in March 2022, and the woman filed for divorce shortly thereafter.The District Court of Weston County entered a stipulated decree of divorce in January 2023, settling child custody, visitation, and child support. However, the division of marital property was disputed. A bench trial was held in April, and the court issued its final order in November, dividing the marital property. The court considered the equitable value of the marital home, rental property, livestock, personal vehicles, personal property, and debts. The man was assigned the marital home, while the woman received her retirement funds and an equalization payment from the man.The man appealed to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property. He contended that the court failed to allocate a portion of an IRS debt to the woman and improperly valued his trucking business. The Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s findings for an abuse of discretion and found no clear error. The court noted that the district court had appropriately considered the statutory factors under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114(a) and had made a just and equitable division of the property.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the property division was not so unfair and inequitable that reasonable people could not abide by it. The court also found that the district court had reasonably considered each of the statutory factors and that its ruling did not shock the conscience. View "Regan v. Regan" on Justia Law

Megan Vassilopoulos (Mother) and Kyle Vassilopoulos (Father) were granted a divorce by the District Court of Fremont County. The court awarded Father primary physical custody and decision-making authority over their minor child, LJV, and deviated the presumptive child support amount to zero. The court also divided the marital property, awarding Mother the marital home and other assets, while Father retained his businesses and other personal property. Mother appealed the custody, child support, and property division decisions.The District Court of Fremont County initially issued a temporary custody order, granting Mother primary physical custody and Father visitation rights. After a three-day bench trial, the court awarded joint legal custody, with Father having primary physical custody and decision-making authority. The court also deviated the presumptive child support amount to zero, citing the number of days LJV was with Mother and her provision of health insurance. In a subsequent two-day bench trial, the court divided the marital property, awarding Mother the marital home and other assets, while Father retained his businesses and other personal property.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s custody and property division orders, finding no abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court adequately considered the child’s best interests and the statutory factors for property division. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court abused its discretion by deviating from the presumptive child support amount without fully explaining its reasons. The court reversed and remanded the child support order for further findings based on the evidence in the record. View "Vassilopoulos v. Vassilopoulos" on Justia Law

Bradley M. Schofield (Husband) and Debbie S. Schofield (Wife) were married in 1979 and separated in May 2016. In June 2021, Wife filed for divorce, and in September 2022, the district court entered a stipulated decree of divorce, which included a property distribution spreadsheet. The spreadsheet did not specify individual asset values but provided a total value for each party's distribution. Husband later filed a motion to enforce the decree, claiming Wife had not transferred an account valued at $185,300. Wife countered that the account had been transferred to Husband in 2016. The district court denied Husband's motion, finding he failed to prove the account had not been transferred.Husband did not appeal this decision but instead filed a W.R.C.P. 60(b) motion, claiming mutual mistake regarding the account's value in the decree. He argued that both parties misunderstood the $185,300 value. The district court denied this motion, ruling it was barred by res judicata, untimely, and not supported by evidence of mutual mistake.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Husband's claim of mutual mistake was actually a dispute over the interpretation of the decree, not a mutual mistake of fact. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. Additionally, the court awarded Wife costs and attorney fees for defending the appeal, as allowed under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-111. View "Schofield v. Schofield" on Justia Law

A father, involved in a custody dispute in Montana, subpoenaed his child's therapy records from a therapist in Wyoming. The therapist filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that the records were privileged and confidential under Wyoming law and HIPAA, and that disclosing them would not be in the child's best interests. The district court in Park County partially granted the motion, allowing the father access to some records but withholding treatment notes, interviews, and process notes, citing the child's best interests.The district court's decision was based on the belief that protecting the child's best interests justified withholding certain records. However, Wyoming law does not recognize a child's best interests as a valid reason to deny a parent access to their child's therapy records if the parent has waived the privilege. The court did not provide any statutory or procedural basis for its decision, relying instead on a New Hampshire case, In re Berg, which is not binding in Wyoming and involved different legal standards.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court abused its discretion. The court held that Wyoming law, specifically W.R.C.P. 45 and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-38-113, does not allow a court to quash a subpoena based on a child's best interests once the privilege has been waived by a parent. The court also clarified that HIPAA does not create a privilege that would prevent the disclosure of therapy records in judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to issue an order fully denying the therapist's motion to quash the subpoena. View "Loyning v. Potter" on Justia Law

Mitchell Rataiczak and Gwendolyn Parker, who were never married, are the biological parents of two minor children. After their relationship ended, Parker moved to Wyoming with the children, while Rataiczak remained in Arizona. Rataiczak filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, visitation, and child support. The District Court of Park County awarded joint legal custody to both parents, primary physical custody to Parker, and visitation rights to Rataiczak. The court also ordered Rataiczak to pay child support.The district court's visitation schedule was graduated, requiring Rataiczak to visit the children in Wyoming for a certain number of days each year, with no overnights initially allowed. The court also ordered Rataiczak to be solely responsible for transportation costs, but made no adjustment to his child support obligation.Rataiczak appealed to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in setting the visitation schedule and in not adjusting his child support obligation in light of the transportation costs. The Supreme Court found that the visitation provisions were not clear enough to promote understanding and compliance, and that the graduated visitation schedule was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The court also found that the district court should have considered whether an adjustment to Rataiczak's child support obligation or the allocation of transportation costs was appropriate in light of the visitation determination. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Rataiczak v. Parker" on Justia Law

This case involves a divorce dispute between Randall Thomas Bailey and Sara Elizabeth Bailey, now known as Ms. Larson. The couple married in 2005 and have three minor children. Ms. Larson filed for divorce in December 2022. The main issues in the case revolve around the district court's decisions on child custody, child support, and property division.The district court granted joint legal custody of the children, with the children's primary residence set with Ms. Larson. The court also calculated child support, imputing income to Mr. Bailey, and divided the couple's property, which was valued at approximately $2.2 million. The division required an equalization payment of $475,000 from Mr. Bailey to Ms. Larson.Mr. Bailey appealed the district court's decisions, arguing that the court abused its discretion in determining custody, calculating child support, and dividing the parties' property. He also contested the valuation of his gun collection, the valuation of accounts at the date of separation, and whether two properties in South Carolina should have been included in the marital estate.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decisions. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the issues of custody, child support, and property division. The court also found that the evidence presented supported the district court's findings and conclusions, and that the property division was not so unfair or unreasonable as to shock the conscience. View "Bailey v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The case involves Russell Patrick Benedict, who was convicted of sexually abusing his sixteen-year-old daughter, AB. During the investigation, Benedict's cellphone was seized, and a warrant was obtained to search its contents. However, the phone's contents were never searched as Benedict claimed he could not remember the passcode. After his conviction, Benedict filed a motion for the return of his and AB's cellphones. The State objected to the return of Benedict's phone, suspecting it contained nude photos of AB, which would constitute child pornography. The district court denied Benedict's motion without taking evidence on it, leading to an appeal.The State conceded that the district court should have received evidence before ruling on Benedict's motion and requested a reversal and remand for the district court to receive evidence. The Supreme Court of Wyoming granted the State's motion and ordered the matter to be remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on Benedict's motion.The district court held the evidentiary hearing, during which the State argued against the return of Benedict's cellphone based on its earlier assertion that it likely contained child pornography. The district court found that the State had an interest in preventing the dissemination of child pornography and in preventing further trauma to AB. It concluded that the State had an interest in retaining Benedict's phone and denied Benedict's motion for its return. Benedict appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the State had met its burden of proving an interest in retaining Benedict's cellphone. View "Benedict v. State" on Justia Law