Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court entering an order requiring shared custody of a child between Mother and Father, holding that the district court erred.Father and Mother shared a child. Father filed a petition to establish custody, visitation, and child support. The district court entered a temporary custody order establishing fifty-fifty shared custody. Two years later, each parent asked for primary physical custody and requested written findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 52(a). More than one year after the bench trial, the district court entered an order requiring shared custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court's delay in issuing the final order was not reversible error; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in holding that the law favors shared custody and in ordering shared custody without adequate Rule 52(a)(1)(A) findings and conclusions explaining how the arrangement was in the child's best interest. View "Castellow v. Pettengill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from an order of the probate court authorizing the sale of two vehicles owned by Darren and Deidra Rowe after Darren shot and killed both Deidra and himself, holding that there was no appealable order.After Darren killed his wife, Deidra, and himself, Deidra's petitioned the probate court pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 2-7-614 for permission to sell the two vehicles the couple owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Absent exceptional circumstances, the vehicles would have gone to Darren upon Deidra's death, but Deidra's administrator argued that equitable principles, Wyoming's felonious death statute, and public policy precluded Darren's estate from receiving the proceeds. The probate court determined that Darren's killing of Deidra severed the joint tenancy by right of survivorship, thereby creating a tenancy in common subject to the probate court's jurisdiction. The court then authorized the sales. Darren's estate appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the probate court's order granting permission to sell the property was not appealable. View "Rowe v. Walker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court striking a lien filed by Excel Concrete & Excavation, LLC against Douglas Schrier's Teton County property, holding that the expedited and limited proceeding authorized by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 29-1-601(b) afforded Schrier no relief.After Schrier hired Excel to provide construction services on his property a dispute arose over payments. Excel eventually filed a lien against Schrier's property. Schrier filed a petition to strike the lien pursuant to section 29-1-601(b), asserting that the lien was grounds because Excel's preliminary lien notice was untimely and because the lien contained material misstatements. The district court struck the lien, concluding that Excel's preliminary lien notice was untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Schrier's claim was insufficient to warrant relief under s. ection 29-1601(b). View "Douglas Matthew Schrier Living Trust v. Excel Concrete & Excavation, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court adjudicating three minor children as neglected and the order changing the permanency plan for the adoption from reunification of the family to termination of Father's parental rights and adoption, holding that there was no plain error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the juvenile court's failure to insure Father's presence at the adjudication hearing did not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the children's permanency; (2) the juvenile court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it denied Father the opportunity to participate by phone in the initial hearing and failed to advise him of his rights, but there was no material prejudice to Father; and (3) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Department of Family Services had made reasonable efforts at reunification and that the permanency plan for the children should be changed to adoption. View "FR v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of two counts of aggravated assault and battery, holding that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the hearsay testimony of two law enforcement officers at trial, but the error was not prejudicial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the officers' testimony repeating the complaining witness's out-of-court statements was not admissible under Wyo. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B); (2) the district court abused its discretion in allowing the officers to testify to the complaining witness's out-of-court statements to explain their investigation; and (3) there was no reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to Defendant had the improper hearsay evidence not been admitted. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting a preliminary injunction sought by Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC (Best Home) to prohibit three registered nurses (collectively, the Nurses) who left Best Home's employ and began working for a competing company, from working for Best Home's competitor, holding that the district court abused its discretion.The Nurses in this case quit working for Best Home and went to work for one of Best Home's competitors. Best Home sued them for breach of the non-compete provision in their employment contracts and requested a preliminary injunction to prohibit them from working for its competitors. The district court enjoined the Nurses from working for Best Home's competitors. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Best Home did not show it was likely to succeed in establishing that the non-compete provision was consistent with public policy, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion by enjoining the Nurses from working for Best Home's competitors; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the Nurses to present evidence on how enforcement of the non-compete provision would harm the public interest. View "Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's order changing the permanency plan for Mother and Father's four children from reunification to adoption, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the Department of Family Services (DFS) provided reasonable efforts to reunify the children.After an evidentiary permanency hearing the juvenile court found that reunification with Mother and Father was not in the children's best interests and that reasonable efforts to reunify were no longer required because they had been unsuccessful. The court then changed the plan to adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient for the juvenile court to conclude that reasonable efforts to reunify the children with Mother and Father had been made and no further efforts were required; and (2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption even though specialized care was not provided to the parents. View "AW v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of four counts of sexual abuse of a minor, holding that Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights and that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.At a hospital, Defendant made incriminating statements to law enforcement officers that he had sexually abused his daughter. Defendant filed a motion to suppress his confessions on the grounds that he was lacking contact with reality when he confessed. The district court denied the motion to suppress, finding that Defendant waived his Miranda rights voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Thereafter, Defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights; and (2) Defendant's trial counsel provided effective assistance at each phase of Defendant's prosecution. View "Jendresen v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's petition for modification of alimony, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father's request to modify alimony.The parties in this case had two children and were divorced in Connecticut. They entered into a separation agreement that was incorporated by reference into their decree of divorce that set terms for child support and alimony. Father later filed a petition to reduce alimony, asserting that the financial position of both parties had changed substantially since their divorce. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably find that Father failed to show a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a modification of his alimony obligation. View "Boyce v. Jarvis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence and the issuance of a nunc pro tunc judgment conforming Defendant's written sentence to the court's oral pronouncement at his sentencing hearing, holding that there was no error in Defendant's sentence.Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that his written judgment and sentence was illegal under Hartley v. State, 460 P.3d 716 (Wyo. 2020). The district court denied the motion without a hearing and then issued a nunc pro tune judgment correcting the written sentence to conform it to the oral pronouncement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly corrected Defendant's written sentence without a hearing; and (2) the sentence complied with Wyoming law. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law