Baker v. Baker

• Docket Number: S-23-0130
• Decision Date: 12 December 2023
• Parties: JAMES BAKER, Appellant (Defendant), v. STEPHANIE BAKER, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

1

2023 WY 121

JAMES BAKER, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
STEPHANIE BAKER, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. S-23-0130

Supreme Court of Wyoming

December 12, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of Platte County The Honorable Edward A. Buchanan, Judge

Representing Appellant: Donna D. Domonkos, Domonkos & Thorpe LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Greg B. Asay, Associated Legal Group LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Guardian ad Litem: No appearance.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

2

GRAY, Justice

[¶1] James Baker appeals from the decree of divorce entered by a successor district court judge after the district court judge who conducted the trial retired. He contends the successor judge violated his constitutional right to due process in making findings of fact and conclusions of law without a formal certification under W.R.C.P. 63. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] Mr. Baker and Ms. Stephanie Baker each raise one issue which we restate:

Mr. Baker-Did the successor district court judge violate Mr. Baker's right to due process when it failed to comply with Rule 63 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure?^[1]

Ms. Baker-Did Mr. Baker waive any objection to proceeding under W.R.C.P. 63

Ms. Baker's issue is dispositive.

FACTS

[¶3] Mr. Baker and his former wife, Stephanie Baker, were married on August 4, 2006. Four children were born to the marriage. Ms. Baker filed for divorce on March 12, 2021. The district court held a two-day trial on July 7-8, 2022. Shortly thereafter, the presiding district court judge left the bench and the case was assigned to a successor judge.

[¶4] The successor judge held a status conference with the parties, their counsel, and the guardian ad litem on November 14, 2022. At the status conference, the judge said:

So, folks, as you're probably aware, I started on September 19th, and I have a number of cases I'm trying to wrap up that already had hearings, already had trials. And so I have had the opportunity to read the transcript. It's a rough draft in your case. And what I've been doing with the parties in these cases is telling them that . . . if I'm able to kind of get a decent idea from reading the transcript, I'm happy to proceed with a determination on the case. But I also wanted to give

3

parties the opportunity to speak to that, as well as offer if they wanted to do findings of fact, conclusions of law, they could do that as well.

[¶5] The district court asked the parties how they would prefer to proceed. Mr. Baker's counsel stated:

The Court has the evidence in front of it. You have the record. Closing arguments were made, and I think the guardian ad litem even made a written closing. Evidence has been closed under rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. I think the time for talking about findings of fact and conclusions of law have gone, and we would like the Court to make a ruling on this case based on what it has before it now.

[¶6] Ms. Baker's attorney recommended that the attorneys "go through and point out specifics that might be pertinent to this case" and that the parties submit affidavits "indicating any updates that have happened or what has happened or transpired since . . . the trial."

[¶7] When asked by the successor judge for input, the guardian ad litem stated:

I believe the Court [is] well aware of my recommendation regarding the case. . . . I just feel a sense of urgency in that I believe that the best interest of the children are served if they're with dad. They're with mom now, and so . . . we just have a period here where delay is, I believe, not helpful.

So I appreciate that the Court has cases that are older. I don't know if the other older ones involve children as well, but we certainly do appreciate you giving us a look here, and we look forward to an order as quickly as you can get it.

[¶8] The district court informed the parties that after reading the record, its only questions related to the parties' debts on the house and business properties and whether these had been sufficiently accounted for in the final net valuation for distribution of equity. The district court invited the parties to submit any clarification on these questions including the significant difference in the parties' proposed asset valuations.

[¶9] After the district court informed the parties of its difficulties with the property debt, Ms. Baker's attorney objected to proceeding from the transcripts alone and suggested the parties submit findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as affidavits speaking to the status of the parties since the trial. Mr. Baker's attorney repeated his preference for the

4

district court to proceed on all issues based on the transcripts. The district court decided to proceed from the transcripts.

[¶10] On December 5, 2022, the district court issued a detailed Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Decree of Divorce resolving all issues. It awarded joint legal custody of the children to Mr. and Ms. Baker with primary physical custody to Ms. Baker. Mr. Baker timely appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶11] The dispositive issue in this case is one of waiver. "While the question of waiver is often one of fact, when the facts and circumstances relating to the subject are admitted or clearly established, waiver becomes a question of law which we consider de novo." Rodriguez v. State, 2019 WY 25, ¶ 16, 435 P.3d 399, 403 (Wyo....