Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

When Mother and Father divorced, Mother was awarded primary custody of the parties’ child. Father later field a petition for modification of custody and time-sharing. The district court found there had been a substantial change of circumstances and that it was in the child’s best interest for Father to be awarded custody. Mother appealed, claiming (1) the district court did not have jurisdiction over Father’s petition for modification of custody due to Father’s failure to comply with the statutory pleading requirements; (2) her due process right was violated when default was improperly entered against her; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in entering a child support order due to its failure to comply with statutory child support requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Father’s petition; (2) Mother was given the process she was due; and (3) the district court correctly ruled on the child support issue. View "Brush v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Department of Family Services filed a petition to terminate Mother’s rights to her son. A default was entered against Mother after she failed to answer the Department’s petition. During a recess in the default termination hearing, Mother provided a signed and acknowledged relinquishment of her parental rights and consent to adoption of her son. The district court entered an order accepting the relinquishment and consent. Mother appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not setting aside the default and in accepting the relinquishment and consent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) Mother’s decision to provide the relinquishment and consent rendered any claimed error in declining to lift the default moot; and (2) the order accepting the relinquishment and consent was not appealable. Remanded. View "V.L.K. v. State" on Justia Law

Mother, a U.S. citizen, and Father, a citizen of both France and the U.S., were married in Teton County after executing a prenuptial agreement. The parties subsequently became the parents of twins. In 2011, Mother filed for divorce in the Teton County district court. Father then moved to France. The trial court entered a decree that divided the parties' property in accordance with the prenuptial agreement and awarded Mother sole custody of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) determining that it had jurisdiction to resolve the parties' custody dispute; and (2) declining to assign any significant weight to the children's possible dual citizenship in making its custody and visitation determination. View "Harignordoquy v. Barlow" on Justia Law

Wife filed a complaint for divorce from Husband, and the matter proceeded to trial. Neither party, however, timely requested the official court reporter to report and transcribe the proceeding as prescribed by Rule 904 of the Uniform Rules for District Courts. The official court reporter was consequently unavailable for trial, and the district court would not permit any resulting transcript prepared by an unofficial court reporter to be considered an official transcript. The trial was held without a court reporter present, and a divorce decree issued. Wife challenged the divorce decree on appeal, arguing that the district court erred by refusing to allow the trial proceedings to be transcribed by an unofficial court reporter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Wife to use a substitute reporter to transcribe the proceedings and prepare an official transcript; but (2) Wife was not prejudiced by the ruling. View "Bredthauer v. Bredthauer" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a divorce decree, the tribal court awarded Father, who lived in Wyoming, primary custody of the parties' child and liberal visitation to Mother, who lived in New Mexico. Father later filed a motion seeking clarification regarding which party was obligated for transportation costs relative to visitation. The district court clarified the decree by concluding that weekend visitation was at the expense of the visiting parent and the other visitation costs were shared by the parents. Mother appealed, contending that the district court's order improperly modified or otherwise improperly clarified the divorce decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in its order granting Father's motion to clarify, the district court properly employed Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(a) to clarify an ambiguity in the divorce decree and correctly clarified the decree according to the contemporaneous intent of the trial court. View "Tafoya v. Tafoya" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced a decade after they married. Custody of the parties' three children was awarded to Wife. Father subsequently filed a petition seeking a modification awarding him custody of the children. The district court denied Father's petition on the basis that he had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances. The court also held Father in contempt for failing to comply with the divorce decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was no material change in circumstances; (2) did not deny Father's due process rights; (3) did not ignore the best interests of the children in this case; (4) did not ignore discrepancies in certain testimony; and (6) did not abuse its discretion in finding Father in contempt. View "Olsen v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife were married for seventeen years at the time they decided to divorce. After a trial, the district court (1) valued the total assets to be divided between the parties at approximately $4.5 million; (2) awarded Wife over $1 million and (3) awarded Husband approximately $3.4 million. Wife appealed arguing that the trial court inequitably divided the marital assets when it gave her only twenty-three percent of the total assets. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly assessed the facts and considered each of the required factors in making its determination and thus did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital property. View "Kummerfeld v. Kummerfeld" on Justia Law

In KMO I, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Mother's appointed attorney on appeal (Attorney) filed a fee motion requesting $121,530 in fees. The district court awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $25,000, concluding that it could not, "in good conscience," award attorney's fees in the amount Attorney requested. Attorney appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's fee reduction in this case, holding that Attorney provided no evidence demonstrating that the fee reduction was unreasonable, and the district court did not err in its assessment of the fee request. View "In re KMO" on Justia Law

Mother was the primary residential custodian of Daughter under Mother and Father's divorce decree. Father subsequently filed a motion seeking primary residential custody of Daughter. Mother opposed the change of custody and sought an increase in child support based on a purported increase in Father's income. The district court (1) denied Father's motion for a change of custody, finding no material change in circumstances; and (2) granted Mother's request for an increase in child support. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the child support order and remanded for entry of a proper award, holding that the amount of the child support awarded was not correct under Wyoming's statutory child support tables; and (2) affirmed on all other issues. View "Walker v. Walker" on Justia Law

In 2008, Husband and Wife were divorced pursuant to a stipulated property settlement, child custody, child support agreement. In 2010, Husband petitioned to reopen the divorce decree, alleging that Wife had misrepresented material facts related to the parties' division of debt. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Husband's petition, concluding that any misrepresentation by Wife about certain loans was insufficient to reopen the decree of divorce. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while Wife may have made misrepresentations concerning the loans, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the debt allocation to Wife did not result in an overall allocation of debt that was mistaken or unfair. View "Campbell v. Hein" on Justia Law