Boyce v. Jarvis

• Decision Date: 30 June 2021
• Docket Number: S-20-0231
• Citation: 490 P.3d 320
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Parties: Brendon A. BOYCE, Appellant (Defendant), v. Julie A. JARVIS, f/k/a Julie A. Boyce, Appellee (Plaintiff).

490 P.3d 320

Brendon A. BOYCE, Appellant (Defendant),

v.Julie A. JARVIS, f/k/a Julie A. Boyce, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-20-0231

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 30, 2021

Representing Appellant: Benjamin L. Keller, Kinnaird Law Office, P.C., Sheridan, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Elizabeth B. Lance and Toni E. Hartzel, Lance & Hall LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming

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

DAVIS, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Brendon Boyce appeals the denial of his petition for modification of alimony. Prior to the hearing on his petition, the district court reduced Mr. Boyce's child support based on an imputed income of $4,000.00 per month. On appeal, he claims that the court should have similarly imputed his income for alimony and reduced his alimony payments in proportion to the decrease in his income. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Mr. Boyce presents a single issue, which we restate as follows:

Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied his request to modify alimony?

FACTS

[¶3] Brendon Boyce and Julie Jarvis, formerly Julie Boyce, were divorced in Connecticut in 2016 and have two children. The parties entered into a separation agreement, which set terms for child support and alimony. The Connecticut court found that the agreement was fair and equitable and incorporated it by reference into the parties’ decree of divorce.

[¶4] With respect to child support, the parties agreed that Mr. Boyce would pay Ms. Jarvis "Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars per week, payable on the first of each month by cash or check, which is in accordance with the [Connecticut] Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines." The parties further agreed that Mr. Boyce would pay alimony. The alimony provisions were as follows:

3.2 Commencing January 1, 2017, the Wife shall receive alimony from the Husband in the amount of $3,500.00 per month, payable on the first of each month until August 31, 2021. Alimony shall be paid by either cash or check. Alimony shall terminate to Wife from Husband in the following occurrences[:] the death of either party, the remarriage of the Wife, or the cohabitation of the Wife as defined below. The termination of Wife's alimony due to cohabitation shall only be exercisable by the Husband if he is paying at least the amount of $3,500.00 per month and is current on his payments. The term "cohabitation" as defined herein means the Wife's living with any person, other than her mother, for a period of ninety (90) days or more, regardless of whether her living with such person alters her financial circumstances or not.

* * * *

3.4 For purposes of alimony, no upward modification shall be allowed until such time that the parties respective gross incomes increase as such: Wife's gross income to exceed $100,000.00 per year, and the Husband's gross income to exceed $275,000.00 per year. If the Wife's income shall exceed $100,000.00 per year, alimony shall be reduced by $15.00 for every one hundred dollars earned above $100,000.00, with such reduction to begin the month immediately following such change in the Wife's earnings. If the Husband's income shall exceed $275,000.00 per year, alimony shall be increased by $15.00 for every one hundred dollars earned above $275,000.00, with such increase being paid by the Husband as a lump-sum alimony payment no later than June 1st of the year after any year in which his gross income exceeds $275,000.00.

3.5 At the close of each calendar year, and before June 1st of the following year, the parties shall exchange computations describing the total amount of his/her gross income from all sources received during the calendar year immediately preceding the date of such statement as well as copies of any and all tax returns and supporting IRS forms, including but not limited to IRS Forms K-1, W-2, 1099 and the like, filed for the preceding tax year.

[¶5] At the time of the divorce, Mr. Boyce worked as an oilfield operator, drilling oil wells. He contracted work through Boyce Consulting, Inc., a company of which he was the sole owner and shareholder. In 2018, Boyce Consulting lost an important drilling contract due to decreased industry demand. Mr. Boyce discontinued operations of Boyce Consulting and set up a new entity called Boyce Development Corporation, of which he was also the sole shareholder.

[¶6] In March of 2018, Mr. Boyce secured a new short-term drilling contract through Boyce Development, but the contract was not for a definite amount of work. It paid approximately the same per diem rate as the contract that Mr. Boyce lost, but it did not provide him equal economic benefit. During this time, Mr. Boyce began transitioning his company to real estate ventures since he was having difficulty securing drilling work. Through Boyce Development, he reinvested income and purchased a duplex in Florida and a condominium in Spain. After actual expenses and investment costs, Mr. Boyce paid himself a salary of $4,000.00 per month, after taxes, from Boyce Development.

[¶7] On January 9, 2018, Ms. Jarvis filed a notice of filing of foreign judgment in Wyoming's Fourth Judicial District Court, as well as a petition seeking an order to show cause why Mr. Boyce should not be held in contempt for failing to provide required financial documentation and for failing to make alimony payments. At that time, Ms. Jarvis lived with the two minor children in Johnson County, and Mr. Boyce lived in Florida.

[¶8] The district court held a hearing on June 1, 2018 and issued an order on October 12, 2018. It noted that Mr. Boyce had not sought to modify alimony through the courts and found him in contempt for his failure to pay. It entered "a judgment against [Mr. Boyce], individually, and Boyce Development Corporation in the amount of $42,000 for past due alimony."

[¶9] In addition to the petition relating to alimony, Ms. Jarvis also petitioned the court to increase her child support. The district court heard arguments on the same day as the contempt hearing, June 1, 2018, but it did not issue a written order on the modification of child support until approximately eight months later, on February 28, 2019.

[¶10] The court found that at the time of the divorce Ms. Jarvis worked as a school administrator earning approximately $10,166.00 per month. It found that at the time of the modification hearing she was earning a net income of $1,261.79 per month, and that she was not voluntarily underemployed.

[¶11] With respect to Mr. Boyce, it found that he was earning approximately $7,939.32 per month in income from his company at the time of the original support order. It found that Mr. Boyce was earning a salary of $4,000.00 per month from his company at the time of the modification hearing, and it used that figure to compute child support. The court further found that Mr. Boyce was investing all available company profits into a new real estate development venture, and that those investment expenditures were reasonable and legitimate considering the uncertainty of work in the oilfields.

[¶12] Based on these figures, the district court reduced child support from $2,000.00 per month to $1,085.00 per month. Ms. Jarvis appealed the decision, but we summarily affirmed based on briefing deficiencies. Jarvis v. Boyce , 2019 WY 124, ¶ 4, 453 P.3d 780, 781 (Wyo. 2019).

[¶13] On December 10, 2018, Ms. Jarvis filed another motion for an order to show cause, which alleged that Mr. Boyce had violated the divorce decree by failing to turn over any documents showing income from subcontractors for Boyce Consulting and Boyce Development for 2016 and 2017 tax years to date, as well as failing to turn over any income documents for 2017 to date. The district court held another hearing on February 13, 2019. Following the hearing, it found no willful violation of the decree and therefore did not find Mr. Boyce in contempt in an order entered on April 19, 2019.

[¶14] During this same time frame, on January 17, 2019, Mr. Boyce filed a petition to reduce alimony, in which he asserted that the financial position of both parties had substantially changed since their divorce. On January 30, 2019, Ms. Jarvis filed yet another petition for an order to show cause asking the court to hold Mr. Boyce in contempt for failing to pay the outstanding judgment from the October 2018 order, and for his continuing failure to remit alimony payments.

[¶15] The district court held a hearing on May 15, 2019. It ordered the parties to submit written briefs on Connecticut law and its applicability to the modification of alimony. Approximately fourteen months after the hearing, the district court issued an order on the petition.¹ It found that Mr. Boyce did not meet his burden to justify a modification of alimony. It further found that he owed $47,000.00 in alimony, $1,250.00 in unpaid medical bills, and $3,941.00 in attorney fees with statutory interest at 10% per annum. Since Mr. Boyce had overpaid child support in the amount of $14,063.00, the district court entered a total judgment against him in the amount of $40,928.00.

[¶16] Mr. Boyce timely appealed the district court's denial of his petition to modify alimony. In his notice of appeal, his counsel noted that the hearing was not reported, and that therefore a statement of the evidence would be prepared pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03. The district court settled the record as requested, and it entered its factual findings under that rule on October 30, 2020.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶17] The parties’ separation agreement, which was incorporated into the decree of divorce, contained a choice of law provision, providing that the laws of Connecticut would apply to construction of the agreement and resolution of any dispute arising thereunder. In the event that another state's substantive law applies to a dispute, Wyoming law still controls any procedural matters, including the applicable standard of review. Denbury Onshore, LLC v. APMTG Helium LLC , 2020 WY 146, ¶ 24, 476 P.3d 1098, 1105 (Wyo. 2020).

[¶18] We review a district...