Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mother and Father separated in 2005, when their child was ten months old, and largely shared parenting of the child. In 2012, Father filed a petition to establish custody, visitation, and child support. The district court first issued a temporary custody order addressing temporary custody, visitation, and child support during the pendency of the custody action. After a trial, the district court issued a final custody order awarding primary custody to Father and granting Mother liberal visitation rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in treating its final custody order as an initial custody determination rather than as a modification of an existing custody order; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration and weighting of the status quo and the child’s custody preference in making its custody determination. View "Demers v. Nicks" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced in 2014. Wife appealed from the judgment of divorce, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in not awarding her alimony, erred in its property division, and erred in finding that Wife was able to work. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding alimony despite Wife’s five-year time limit in her request; (2) the district court equitably divided the marital property; and (3) the district court did not err in finding that Wife could conceivably work. View "Kamm v. Kamm" on Justia Law

In 2012, Robert Bratton filed a petition to be appointed the guardian of William Bratton, Robert’s brother. Jeanne Blenkinsop, William’s sister, responded with a counter petition seeking to be appointed guardian and conservator. The district court subsequently granted permanent guardianship and conservatorship to Blenkinsop and dismissed Robert’s petition. Thereafter, Blenkinsop filed a Guardian’s Second Report with the district court. The district court ratified and approved the report, thus rejecting Robert’s objections to the report. Blenkinsop later filed a “Conservator’s First Annual Accounting.” The district court confirmed and approved the accounting. Robert appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decisions accepting the Guardian’s Second Report and the Conservator’s First Annual Accounting, holding (1) the district court did not err in its judgments; and (2) because there was no reasonable cause for these appeals, Blenkinsop was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. View "Bratton v. Blenkinsop" on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who never married, were the parents of two minor children. After the parties separated, the parties filed a stipulated order establishing custody and visitation, which was entered by the district court. The district court later entered a stipulated order for modification of child support, which required Father to pay child support in an amount based on the parties’ agreement that they were exercising shared custody. Father subsequently filed a petition to modify support, claiming a material change in circumstances. Mother requested that the district court order Father to pay child support in accordance with the presumptive child support guidelines that apply when one parent, i.e., Mother, has primary physical custody. The district court found that the existing custody arrangement was, in fact, not shared as the previous stipulated orders indicated and that Mother actually had primary custody based on the number of nights that the parties had the children overnight per year. The court then found a downward deviation was warranted under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-307(b) and reduced Father’s child support obligation from the presumptive amount. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deviating downward from the primary custody presumptive support amount. View "Dellit v. Tracy" on Justia Law

In 2014, Appellant filed a Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion seeking to set aside a 1999 default judgment granting Appellee a divorce. In support of her motion, Appellant alleged that the default judgment was void because the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment against her. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in rejecting Appellant’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion based solely on Appellant’s delay in filing the motion, as Rule 60(b)’s time limitations do not generally apply to Rule 60(b)(4) motions to set aside a judgment as void; but (2) none of the defects Appellant alleged in the district court’s default judgment rendered the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. View "Linch v. Linch" on Justia Law

Father and Mother had a sexual encounter in Portland, Oregon. Mother became pregnant as a result of the encounter. Mother returned to her hometown of Jackson, Wyoming, where the parties’ child was born. Father remained in Washington. Father filed a petition to establish paternity, custody and support and later filed additional pleadings concerning custody and visitation. The district court granted the parties joint legal custody, awarded primary physical custody to Mother, and awarded Father visitation. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s award of primary physical custody to Mother, holding that the custody determination was not an abuse of the court’s discretion; but (2) remanded for further proceedings so that the district court could develop a visitation plan that provides additional detail with regard to visitation and covers a longer portion of the child’s life. View "IC v. DW" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced in 2009 pursuant to a divorce decree that required Father to pay seventy-five percent of the parties’ children’s medical expenses not covered by insurance. At issue in this dispute was whether the costs of one of the parties’ daughter’s placement at a residential program should be treated as a counseling cost, which pursuant to the divorce agreement would be subject to a fifty-fifty split between the parties, or as a medical expense. The district court ruled that residential treatment is a medical expense and ordered Father to reimburse Mother the amount she paid to the residential program in excess of the seventy-five/twenty-five split dictated by the parties’ divorce agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) failing to recognize either a written or an implied agreement between Father and Mother to split the residential treatment costs equally; and (2) failing to apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel to find a binding agreement between the parties to share equally in the costs of their daughter’s residential treatment. View "Samiec v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

The district court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Appellant, concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support three statutory grounds for termination of Appellant’s parental rights. Appellant appealed. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The Supreme Court then entered an order granting Appellant a motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted. The Court subsequently granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and the district court’s order terminating the parental rights of Appellant. View "ANOL v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Mother and Father had one child, TM, during their marriage. When the parties divorced, the custody order awarded Mother primary physical custody of TM. When Father learned that Mother was planning to marry and move with TM to live with her new husband in Texas, Father filed an amended petition to modify requesting primary physical custody of TM. After a trial, the district court found that Mother’s relocation constituted a material change in circumstances and that it was in TM’s best interest for Father to be awarded primary physical custody. Mother appealed, asserting that the district court abused its discretion when it found that Mother’s relocation constituted a material change of circumstances warranting the reopening of the original custody order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably conclude that the considerable increase in the geographical distance between the parties created a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of TM. View "Cook v. Moore" on Justia Law

After twenty years of marriage, Wife filed for divorce from Husband. The primary issue at trial concerned the division of the marital property. After the district court entered a divorce decree, Wife appealed, arguing that the court erred when it declined to require Husband to pay interest on the amount it ordered him to pay to equalize the division of marital property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion when it suspended payment of interest as long as Husband makes annual payments of at least $15,000 toward the property allocation. View "Sinclair v. Sinclair" on Justia Law