Aragon v. Aragon

• Decision Date: 19 January 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-40.,04-40.
• Citation: 104 P.3d 756,2005 WY 5
• Parties: Carmen T. ARAGON, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Michael James ARAGON, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

104 P.3d 756

2005 WY 5

Carmen T. ARAGON, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Michael James ARAGON, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 04-40.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

January 19, 2005.

Representing Appellant: Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, WY.

Representing Appellee: Tracy L. Zubrod of Zubrod Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, WY. Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and YOUNG, D.J.

YOUNG, District Judge.

[¶ 1] This appeal is from an order modifying the custody portion of a decree of divorce involving appellant Carmen T. Aragon (Mother) and appellee Michael James Aragon (Father). The order granted Father custody of the couple's four children, separating the children from their half siblings and stepsibling who remain in the custody of Mother and her new husband. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Mother presents these issues for our review:

1. Do the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar a claim that could have been brought in previous proceedings when issues concerning those claims existed at the time previous claims were brought[?]

2. Was awarding the [Father] custody of the children in the best interest of the children[?]

3. Did the court err by splitting the children[?]

Father phrases the issues:

1. Did the district court apply the proper standard when determining to modify custody?

2. Was there sufficient evidence to support the order granting Father's petition for modification?

3. Was the district court required to consider Pace [v. Pace, 2001 WY 43, 22 P.3d 861 (Wyo.2001),] when modifying custody of the parties' four children?

4. Is [Father] entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal?

FACTS

[¶ 3] On April 29, 1987, Mother and Father were married. The marriage produced four children.¹ Ultimately, Mother and Father were divorced on January 10, 2000, and Mother was awarded primary custody of the children. Father was granted visitation and ordered to pay child support.

[¶ 4] Both Father and Mother remarried. Mother and her new husband had two daughters together.² Mother's new husband has four children from a previous relationship, one of whom, a deaf son age sixteen at the time of hearing, resides with Mother and her new husband. Mother's father also resides with Mother and her new husband. Father and his new wife have no other children.

[¶ 5] In June of 2000, Mother petitioned the district court to modify Father's child support, modify Father's visitation with the children, allow Mother to claim the children as dependents for income tax purposes, and find Father in contempt. Father filed his own motions seeking to have Mother found in contempt for 1) improperly claiming the children for tax purposes, 2) not removing her name from certain motor vehicle titles, 3) denying Father visitation with the children, and 4) making derogatory statements about Father to the children. Discovery ensued. Each of these motions was eventually resolved through settlement entered between the parties in February of 2001. Pursuant to the settlement, on March 5, 2001, the district court entered an order modifying the decree of divorce, raising the child support to be paid by Father and altering Father's visitation with the children.

[¶ 6] In September of 2001, Father filed a motion seeking a correction in the computation of his child support obligation and asking that he be given credit for any overpayment in child support. Mother replied to this motion with a request that Father again be held in contempt for not properly meeting his child support responsibilities. Upon hearing, the district court granted Father's motion and entered its order on April 4, 2002. Thereafter, in May of 2002, Father filed a petition to change custody and support. After a day and a half hearing, the district court entered its order awarding Father custody of the children, finding that Father had shown a material and substantial change of circumstances warranting a change in custody and that such change of custody was in the best interests of the children. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 7] We have previously reiterated the well recognized standard of review for custody determinations:

"Custody, visitation, child support, and alimony are all committed to the sound discretion of the district court. It has been our consistent principle that in custody matters, the welfare and needs of the children are to be given paramount consideration. The determination of the best interests of the child is a question for the trier of fact. `We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.' Fink [v. Fink], 685 P.2d [34,] 36 [(Wyo.1984)]."

Reavis v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428, 431 (Wyo.1998).... Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means exercising sound judgment with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. Pace v. Pace, 2001 WY 43, ¶ 9, 22 P.3d 861, ¶ 9 (2001); Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998).

"Our review entails evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's decision, and we afford to the prevailing party every favorable inference while omitting any consideration of evidence presented by the unsuccessful party. We cannot sustain findings of fact not supported by the evidence, contrary to the evidence, or against the great weight of the evidence. Similarly, an abuse of discretion is present when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored. RDS v. GEMN, 9 P.3d 984, 986 (Wyo.2000)."

In re KRA, 2004 WY 18, ¶ 7, 85 P.3d 432, ¶ 7 (Wyo.2004) (some citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel

[¶ 8] Mother argues that both the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply in this case. According to Mother, the district court's orders of March 2001 and April 2002 must be considered final orders on the merits, which preclude Father from again litigating the issue of custody of the children. Specifically, Mother asserts that in each of the previous proceedings Father raised the issue of custody, or at least had an opportunity to raise the issue of custody. Thus, Mother contends that in the interests of finality and judicial economy, Father was prohibited from raising the issue of custody in May of 2002.

[¶ 9] This court has previously addressed the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel as these doctrines relate to modification of custody. This court's established policy manifests a balance between the doctrine of finality of judgments and judicial economy supported by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, on the one hand, and the applicable statutes providing for modification of the provisions of a divorce decree concerning child custody, child support, visitation, and alimony, on the other hand.³ A court is charged with resolving that tension by determining if there has been a material change in circumstances warranting modification and that modification would be in the best interests of the children. Rogers v. Rogers, 973 P.2d 1118, 1122-23 (Wyo.1999); Ayling v. Ayling, 661 P.2d 1054, 1055-56 (Wyo.1983). See also generally, Ready v. Ready, 2003 WY 121, ¶ 11, 76 P.3d 836, ¶ 11 (Wyo.2003); Smith v. Smith, 895 P.2d 37, 41 (Wyo.1995).

[¶ 10] While the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel can bar reopening a divorce decree, a district court does retain jurisdiction to modify a decree of divorce under certain circumstances. Harshfield v. Harshfield, 842 P.2d 535, 537-38 (Wyo.1992). One such circumstance is where the party is able to show a material change in circumstances surrounding the care, custody, and visitation of a child. Indeed, as we recently expressed in Geerts v. Jacobsen, 2004 WY 148, ¶ 17, 100 P.3d 1265, ¶ 17 (Wyo.2004), Wyoming statutory law expressly provides courts with subject matter jurisdiction to enforce or modify a final decree of divorce concerning the care, custody, and visitation of a child as the circumstances of the parents and needs of the children require on either a temporary or permanent basis. Our examination and evaluation of the record in the instant case leads us to the conclusion that there was ample evidence presented to the district court to demonstrate that a material and substantial change of circumstances had occurred.

[¶ 11] Further, even upon application of the traditional standards of review applicable to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, we hold that such doctrines do not apply given the circumstances established in this case.

In Amoco Prod. Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 2002 WY 154, ¶ 12, 55 P.3d 1246, ¶ 12 (Wyo.2002) (quoting Eklund v. PRI Environmental, Inc., 2001 WY 55, ¶¶ 15-20, 25 P.3d 511, ¶¶ 15-20 (Wyo.2001)), we recognized that res judicata and collateral estoppel are related but distinct concepts. We noted that res judicata bars the relitigation of previously litigated claims or causes of action and that four factors are examined to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies: (1) identity in parties; (2) identity in subject matter; (3) the issues are the same and relate to the subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the persons are identical in reference to both the subject matter and the issues between them. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of previously litigated issues and involves an analysis of four similar factors: (1) whether the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the issue presented in the present action; (2) whether the prior adjudication resulted in a judgment on the merits; (3) whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.

Markstein v....