Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

MF was adjudicated a child in need of supervision (CHINS) shortly before his sixteenth birthday. Four months before MF's seventeenth birthday and after MF twice violated his probation, the juvenile court ordered that MF remain in the custody of the Department of Family Services and on probation until his eighteenth birthday. MF appealed, arguing that any CHINS order must terminate when the minor child turns seventeen. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the juvenile court's order to the extent the order purported to have effect beyond MF's seventeenth birthday, holding that the juvenile court did not have the authority to issue a CHINS order that imposed conditions beyond MF's seventeenth birthday. View "In re MF" on Justia Law

Lisa Kisling, the legal guardian of two children with special needs, applied for and received child care assistance benefits up until the time she enrolled in law school. At that time, the Department of Family Services (Department) denied child care assistance benefits to Kisling because her participation in a graduate program in college rendered her ineligible for receipt of such benefits. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits. The district court reversed, holding that the Department was equitably estopped from denying benefits to Kisling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in considering Kisling's estoppel claim because that issue was not raised in the proceedings before the OAH. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs. v. Kisling" on Justia Law

Upon Father's and Mother's divorce, the parties executed a settlement agreement that awarded Mother primary residential custody of the two children. The agreement was incorporated into the parties' divorce decree. Father later filed a petition to modify the divorce decree, seeking custody of the children. Prior to a hearing, the parties resolved their custody issues. The district court then entered an order interpreting the divorce decree provisions that governed payment of counseling and medical expenses for the parties' children. Father appealed, contending (1) because this case was submitted to the court as a stipulated or agreed case and only queried the meaning of "counseling" generally, the district court improperly answered the question in the context of the parties' dispute; and (2) the court erred in considering extrinsic evidence in analyzing the settlement agreement and in denying Father's motion for a continuance at the hearing. Because Father failed to submit a hearing transcript or statement of evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no error of law appeared on the record; and (2) in this purported agreed on case, the context presented to the district court was presumptively adequate to satisfy the requirements of Koontz v. South Superior. View "Samiec v. Fermelia" on Justia Law