Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Seventy-six-year-old William suffered from a lifelong mental disability. William’s brother Robert and sister Jeanne were the sole trustees of a trust established by William’s mother to support William. Because Williams had fallen prey to financial scammers, Robert and Jeanne took steps to prevent William from trust money. Thereafter, Robert petitioned for appointment as William’s guardian, and Jeanne cross-petitioned seeking to be appointed as William’s guardian and conservator. The district court dismissed Robert’s petition as a sanction for his failure to appear at a pretrial conference and temporarily appointed Jeanne as William’s guardian and conservator. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly dismissed Robert’s guardianship petition; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in disposing of Robert’s motions to submit the case to mediation and to quash the proposed order dismissing Robert’s petition; and (3) the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Robert’s petition to disqualify the presiding judge. View "In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Bratton" on Justia Law

After the Department of Family Services (DFS) received reports regarding the care Children were receiving from Mother and Stepfather, the State filed a neglect petition. DFS’s efforts to reunify Children with Mother failed. The juvenile court subsequently ordered Children to remain in the custody of Father and that DFS move to terminate the parental rights of Mother to Children. DFS appealed, claiming it could not move to terminate Mother’s parental rights because it did not have custody of Children and therefore was not an “authorized agency” that may file a petition to terminate one’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that DFS was an “authorized agency” under the relevant statute regardless of whether it had physical and/or legal custody of Children. View "In re LB" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced pursuant to a decree that awarded the parties joint custody of their two children with each parent allowed to have the children fifty percent of the time. Mother later sought to modify the decree. The district court modified the custody, visitation, and child support provisions of the decree, awarding each parent primary custody of one child and ordering Father to reimburse Mother for certain medical costs and other expenses. Father appealed, contending that the district court abused its discretion by declining to determine the amount Father owed Mother to reimburse her for medical expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly declined to determine what amount, if any, Father owed Mother for medical expenses; and (2) therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to enter an order for a specific amount. View "Carbaugh v. Nichols" on Justia Law

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