Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a California court order, Father had sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child, subject to limited visitation by Mother. Mother filed a petition for modification of the California order seeking modification of the custody, child support, visitation, and bond provisions. The district court denied Mother’s modification motion, ruling that Mother was required to establish a material change of circumstances in order to warrant a change in custody or visitation but that Mother did not meet that burden. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred by failing to give full faith and credit to the terms of the California order, which specifically allowed a change in the terms of visitation when it would be in the child’s best interests; but (2) did not err in concluding that there was no material change in circumstances that would justify a change in custody. Remanded so the district court could conduct a best interests analysis to determine if modification of the visitation provisions of the California order was warranted. View "Gjertsen v. Ter Haar" on Justia Law

Sandra Greenmeyer and Jacob Greenmeyer divorced in 1994. The divorce decree awarded Sandra a portion of Jacob’s railroad retirement benefits. Jacob retired in 2009 and began receiving his retirement benefits. In 2013, Sandra began receiving retirement benefits. In 2014, Sandra filed a motion seeking an order requiring Jacob to pay to her the retirement benefits awarded in the divorce decree that he had been receiving. The district court granted the motion and ordered Jacob to pay Sandra a total of $33,320. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s order did not conflict with the Railroad Retirement Board’s regulations; and (2) because the divorce decree awarded certain retirement benefits to Sandra, she was entitled to recover her property from Jacob. View "Greenmeyer v. Greenmeyer" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married in 2004, and three children were born to the couple. In 2012, Father filed a complaint seeking a divorce. After a trial in 2014, the district court granted primary custody to Father and visitation to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) awarding primary physical custody to Father; (2) requiring the parties to split the children’s medical costs not covered by health insurance; and (3) modifying its original findings of fact and conclusions of law by reducing Mother’s visitation below the forty percent statutory threshold. View "Walter v. Walter" on Justia Law

The year after Mother and Father were married, Mother filed a complaint for divorce. The next year, the district court entered an order enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement. Thereafter, Father filed a motion asking the district court to enter a divorce decree and attached a proposed decree. Mother submitted her own proposed decree. The district court approved and entered Father’s proposed decree, finding that that decree followed more closely the terms of the settlement. The decree awarded Father primary residential custody of the parties’ minor daughter and calculated child support. The Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree in all respects except the provision requiring Mother to pay retroactive child support, holding (1) Father was not estopped from claiming the settlement agreement was binding when he previously took the position that it was not; (2) the district court did not err in enforcing the settlement agreement where the court concluded that the parties’ agreement was in the child’s best interest; (3) the district court did not err in failing to apply the joint presumptive child support found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-304(c); and (4) district court erred in ordering Mother to both reimburse Father for travel costs and to pay retroactive child support. View "Wright v. Wright" on Justia Law

Husband filed for divorce from Wife in 2012. After a trial, the district court issued a decree of divorce dividing the parties’ real property and other significant assets of the parties. Wife appealed, asserting that the district court’s bias toward her deprived her of a fair trial and that the district court’s division of the marital property was so inequitable as to shock the conscience. The Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree, holding (1) the district court did not show bias towards wife during the divorce trial; and (2) the district court’s overall property division was appropriate. View "Guy-Thomas v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Appellant and Appellee were the brother and sister of William Bratton. Appellee was appointed as guardian for William in June 2012. In July 2012, Appellant withdrew $10,000 from a bank account held jointly with Appellee for the benefit of William and transferred the funds to an account held individually by Appellant. Appellant was subsequently ordered to return the funds. Thereafter, Appellee moved to release the funds to a conservatorship account to be administered by Appellee as conservator. The district court ultimately granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by granting Appellee’s motion to release funds; (2) did not err by vacating the initially scheduled hearing on Appellee’s motion to release funds; and (3) had the authority to rule on the motion to release funds. View "Bratton v. Blenkinsop" on Justia Law

Following Appellant’s default and after a default hearing, the district court terminated Appellant’s parental rights to three minor children. Appellant appealed. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and an Anders brief, arguing that he could “find no basis whatsoever to advance an argument of any merit.” The Court granted the motion. The Court then notified Appellant that the district court’s order terminating parental rights would be affirmed unless Appellant filed a brief persuading the Court that the appeal was not wholly frivolous. After Appellant filed his “brief letter,” the Supreme Court ordered that the district court’s order terminating parental rights be affirmed, as the letter presented no cogent legal argument. View "EL v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs." on Justia Law

In 2013, the district court entered a divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Mother and Father. The court awarded primary custody to Mother and awarded Father liberal visitation. Mother later filed a motion seeking relief from the order awarding visitation under Mont. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). The district court denied the motion and also awarded joint presumptive child support. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the child custody and visitation arrangement aspect of Mother’s motion; but (2) the district court erred by ordering joint presumptive child support without determining that both parties contribute substantially to the children’s expenses as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-304(c). Remanded. View "Loran v. Loran" on Justia Law

Appellant was that father of ARW. Appellees were a couple who were involved in ARW’s life since she was three weeks old. Both Appellant and ARW’s mother executed powers of attorney providing that Appellees could have physical custody of ARW. ARW’s mother subsequently consented to termination of her parental rights and to adoption by Appellees. After Appellant was charged with two counts of sexual abuse of ARW’s friend, Appellees were appointed permanent guardians for ARW without Appellant’s consent. Appellant was convicted, and Appellees initiated this action terminate Appellant’s parental rights. After a hearing, the district court entered an order terminating Appellant’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to the termination proceedings; (2) did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to set aside the entry of default against him; and (3) properly concluded that Appellees presented sufficient evidence that DRW was unfit to have care and custody of ARW. View "DRW v. DLP" on Justia Law

When Father and Mother were divorced, Mother was awarded primary custody of the parties’ son and Father was ordered to pay $400 per month in child support. The district court later entered an order finding Father’s monthly child support obligation to be $880 and ruled that he owed retroactive child support for twenty-seven months. Father appealed. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed, holding that because Father did not bring the Court a record sufficient to permit review of the issues he raised, the district court’s orders and rulings were assumed to be correct. View "Knezovich v. Knezovich" on Justia Law