Beeman v. Beeman
Decision Date | 13 April 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 04-68.,04-68. |
Citation | 2005 WY 45,109 P.3d 548 |
Parties | Randy Eugene BEEMAN, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Mellissa Leann BEEMAN, Appellee (Defendant). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Don M. Empfield, Gillette, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Bruce Horton, Douglas, Wyoming (deceased); and Rick Erb of Richard A. Erb, Jr., P.C., Gillette, Wyoming.
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and GUTHRIE, D.J.
[¶ 1] This is an appeal from a child custody decision in a divorce case. We affirm.
[¶ 2] We will restate the issues presented by the parties as follows:
1. Did the appellant fail to comply with W.R.A.P. 3.03 and fail to provide an adequate record for review and, if so, are sanctions appropriate?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting custody of the parties' children to the appellee?
[¶ 3] The parties were married in 1995. They have two sons, one born in 1996 and one born in 1998. The appellant filed for divorce on February 19, 2003. After an unreported bench trial nine months later, where the appellant was represented by counsel and the appellee appeared pro se, the district court entered its decree of divorce in February 2004. The appellee received primary custody of the children.
[¶ 4] The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on March 19, 2004. On May 17, 2004, he filed in the district court a Statement of Evidence, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03, and he filed in this Court a Motion Seeking Stay of Time Requirements for Filing Brief or, in the Alternative, an Extension of Time to File Brief.1 The appellee, now represented by counsel, responded with Appellee's Response to Motion for Stay or Extension of Time and Motion to Dismiss Appeal. We denied the appellant's motion as moot, because he had in the meantime filed his brief, and we denied the appellee's motion to dismiss as being insufficiently grounded. The appellee then filed her brief on July 1, 2004, and the district court's Settlement of Evidence was made part of the record on appeal on July 9, 2004.
[¶ 5] Briefs prepared in the absence of a transcript or other record of the district court proceedings necessarily lack appropriate references to that record. That problem is exacerbated by the fact that W.R.A.P. 3.03 procedures occur after trial, and the rule contains no significant time guidelines. The result is the potential for temporal overlap of district court and appellate court functions.2 Because of these inherent difficulties, and because the Settlement of Evidence was received before this case was considered on appeal, we will consider the record to be technically adequate and will decline to impose sanctions against the appellant.
[¶ 6] The standard of review applicable in this case was recently reiterated in In re KRA, 2004 WY 18, ¶ 7, 85 P.3d 432, 435 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Produit v. Produit, 2001 WY 123, ¶ 9, 35 P.3d 1240, 1242-43 (Wyo.2001)):
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).
[¶ 7] Guiding the district court's exercise of discretion in making child custody decisions is the list of non-exclusive factors found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a) (LexisNexis 2003):
To this list of factors, the legislature has added in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(c), the factor of spousal abuse or child abuse.
[¶ 8] The appellant's attack upon the district court's exercise of its discretion in this case is two-pronged. First, the appellant provides the following summary of what he considers to be the district court's errors:
[¶ 9] Next, the appellant addresses the above-listed statutory factors one-by-one and comments as to his view of the evidence. A couple of examples will suffice:
[¶ 10] We will affirm the decision of the district court because we cannot predicate a finding of abuse of discretion upon the record presented. It is not enough for an appellant to summarize alleged errors and to give his views of the import of the evidence.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Acorn v. Moncecchi
...consider evidence that is not part of the record on appeal or arguments that were not presented to the trial court. See, e.g. , Beeman v. Beeman , 2005 WY 45, ¶ 10, 109 P.3d 548, 551 (Wyo. 2005) ; Barnes v. Barnes , 998 P.2d 942, 945 (Wyo. 2000) ; Mize v. North Big Horn Hosp. Dist. , 931 P.......
-
Derrera v. State
...bring a complete record to this Court” for review. Painovich v. Painovich, 2009 WY 116, ¶ 9, 216 P.3d 501, 504 (Wyo.2009) (citing Beeman v. Beeman, 2005 WY 45, ¶ 10, 109 P.3d 548, 551 (Wyo.2005)). For the purposes of this appeal, we only consider those facts contained in the record presente......
-
Boyce v. Jarvis
...does not address the issues presented to this Court, or does not provide sufficient basis for a finding of abuse of discretion. Beeman v. Beeman , 2005 WY 45, ¶ 11, 109 P.3d 548, 552 (Wyo. 2005).[¶29] In its order settling the record, the district court identified the exhibits received in e......
-
Lamb v. Newman (In re SGN)
...bring a complete record to this Court." Befumo v. Johnson, 2005 WY 114, ¶ 16, 119 P.3d 936, 942-43 (Wyo. 2005) (quoting Beeman v. Beeman, 2005 WY 45, ¶ 10, 109 P.3d 548, 551 (Wyo. 2005)). "Where a proper record is not provided, an appeal may be dismissed or review may be limited to those is......