Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Father and Mother had one child together when Mother filed for divorce. The district court ordered the parties to share physical custody of the child, alternating between Father’s residence and Mother’s residence until the child reached school age, at which time primary physical custody was awarded to Mother. With regard to the division of the marital estate, the court awarded Father most of the parties’ property and required Father to compensate Mother in the form of an equalizing payment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) abused its discretion when it ordered shared custody, as the court failed to consider the effect that the shared custody arrangement would have on the child; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in its division of the marital assets and liabilities. Remanded with instructions to award primary physical custody of the child to Mother, with reasonable visitation to Father. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

Mother and Father separated in 2005, when their child was ten months old, and largely shared parenting of the child. In 2012, Father filed a petition to establish custody, visitation, and child support. The district court first issued a temporary custody order addressing temporary custody, visitation, and child support during the pendency of the custody action. After a trial, the district court issued a final custody order awarding primary custody to Father and granting Mother liberal visitation rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in treating its final custody order as an initial custody determination rather than as a modification of an existing custody order; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration and weighting of the status quo and the child’s custody preference in making its custody determination. View "Demers v. Nicks" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced in 2014. Wife appealed from the judgment of divorce, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in not awarding her alimony, erred in its property division, and erred in finding that Wife was able to work. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding alimony despite Wife’s five-year time limit in her request; (2) the district court equitably divided the marital property; and (3) the district court did not err in finding that Wife could conceivably work. View "Kamm v. Kamm" on Justia Law

In 2012, Robert Bratton filed a petition to be appointed the guardian of William Bratton, Robert’s brother. Jeanne Blenkinsop, William’s sister, responded with a counter petition seeking to be appointed guardian and conservator. The district court subsequently granted permanent guardianship and conservatorship to Blenkinsop and dismissed Robert’s petition. Thereafter, Blenkinsop filed a Guardian’s Second Report with the district court. The district court ratified and approved the report, thus rejecting Robert’s objections to the report. Blenkinsop later filed a “Conservator’s First Annual Accounting.” The district court confirmed and approved the accounting. Robert appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decisions accepting the Guardian’s Second Report and the Conservator’s First Annual Accounting, holding (1) the district court did not err in its judgments; and (2) because there was no reasonable cause for these appeals, Blenkinsop was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. View "Bratton v. Blenkinsop" on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who never married, were the parents of two minor children. After the parties separated, the parties filed a stipulated order establishing custody and visitation, which was entered by the district court. The district court later entered a stipulated order for modification of child support, which required Father to pay child support in an amount based on the parties’ agreement that they were exercising shared custody. Father subsequently filed a petition to modify support, claiming a material change in circumstances. Mother requested that the district court order Father to pay child support in accordance with the presumptive child support guidelines that apply when one parent, i.e., Mother, has primary physical custody. The district court found that the existing custody arrangement was, in fact, not shared as the previous stipulated orders indicated and that Mother actually had primary custody based on the number of nights that the parties had the children overnight per year. The court then found a downward deviation was warranted under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-307(b) and reduced Father’s child support obligation from the presumptive amount. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deviating downward from the primary custody presumptive support amount. View "Dellit v. Tracy" on Justia Law

In 2014, Appellant filed a Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion seeking to set aside a 1999 default judgment granting Appellee a divorce. In support of her motion, Appellant alleged that the default judgment was void because the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment against her. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in rejecting Appellant’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion based solely on Appellant’s delay in filing the motion, as Rule 60(b)’s time limitations do not generally apply to Rule 60(b)(4) motions to set aside a judgment as void; but (2) none of the defects Appellant alleged in the district court’s default judgment rendered the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. View "Linch v. Linch" on Justia Law

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

Jessica Hofhine filed for divorce from Mike Hofhine. The parties entered into a property settlement stipulation agreement that was incorporated into the decree of divorce entered by the district court. The next year, Jessica filed a “Motion for Enforcement of Judgment and Decree of Divorce,” claiming that she was entitled to an “income equalization” payment under the terms of the parties' divorce decree. The district court denied the motion on the basis that Jessica did not ask the court for compensation or equalization before the decree of divorce was entered. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in its interpretation and application of the legal documents governing the property distribution between Jessica and Mike when it concluded that Jessica was not entitled to equalization of income under the parties’ divorce decree; (2) did not violate Jessica’s due process rights by refusing to permit any party or witness testimony at the hearing on Jessica’s motion; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Mike. View "Hofhine v. Hofhine" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were the parents of AD, born in 2009. In 2011, Father filed a complaint for child custody seeking primary physical custody of AD. After a trial, the district court awarded Father primary physical custody of AD, granted Mother liberal visitation with AD, and ordered Mother to pay $289 per month in child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no abuse of discretion in the visitation schedule ordered by the district court; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its order on child support; and (3) the district court’s limitation of Father’s cross-examination did not result in any deprivation of Father’s right to due process. View "Davidson v. Carrillo" on Justia Law

In 2012, Father filed a motion for order to show cause why Mother should not be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the visitation and communication provisions of the parties’ 2004 decree regarding custody of the parties’ two daughters. After a hearing, the district court found Mother in contempt of court and sanctioned her by (1) expanding Father’s visitation, (2) requiring Mother to pay for the children’s plane tickets for a winter break and spring break, (3) requiring Mother to post a bond if she did not fulfill the remedial portions of the order regarding visitation, and (4) directing Mother to pay Father’s attorney fees and the guardian ad litem fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Mother in indirect civil contempt of court; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the remedial sanctions; and (3) Father was not entitled to sanctions against Mother and her appellate counsel. View "Shindell v. Shindell" on Justia Law