Burrow v. Sieler
| Decision Date | 29 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | S-21-0078 |
| Citation | 497 P.3d 921 |
| Parties | Heather Michelle BURROW, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Jason David SIELER, Appellee (Defendant). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Corrie Lynn Lamb of Barney & Graham, LLC, Gillette, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: No appearance.
Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] Heather Burrow (Mother) appeals the district court's order holding her in contempt for denying Jason Sieler (Father) visitation with their child during summer and for the Thanksgiving holiday.1 Her challenge focuses on the court's determination that she willfully violated the divorce decree. More specifically, she contends that she could not have willfully violated the decree because it was not clear, specific, and unambiguous about summer visitation or how to handle holiday visitation during a global pandemic. We affirm.
[¶2] We restate the issue:
Did the district court err when it found that Mother willfully violated the divorce decree?
[¶3] Mother and Father married in 2016 and had one child together, who was born in April 2018. They separated shortly after and then Mother filed for divorce.
[¶4] In October 2019, the court issued an oral decision on various matters in the divorce proceedings. Pertinent to this appeal, the court explained that it would award the parties joint legal custody, give Mother primary physical custody, and establish a liberal visitation schedule for Father. Father would have visitation on Wednesday nights and for three weekends a month. Before the child began school, Father's summer visitation would consist of weekend visitation and two weeks each in June, July, and August. When the child began school, his summer visitation would begin seven days after school let out and end 10 days before school returned. Mother and Father would rotate visitation on various holidays, including Thanksgiving. The court asked Mother's counsel to draft the order.
[¶5] In February 2020, the court issued a divorce decree in which it crossed out and initialed three provisions that Mother's counsel had included in her proposed order. The decree thus stated, in relevant part:
[¶6] A month later, Mother's counsel requested a clarification conference to address "inconsistencies" in the divorce decree, noting that Father's counsel agreed the parties needed clarification. The court held a conference in May but issued no new divorce decree. The conference was not recorded or transcribed.
[¶7] That summer, Father moved for an order to show cause why Mother should not be held in contempt. In his attached affidavit, Father stated that the divorce decree provided that he would have visitation with his child "beginning seven days after school recesses for the summer break until seven days before school resumes." School recessed on May 22. About a week later, on May 28, he notified Mother that he would pick the child up the following day. Mother immediately began arguing with him and refused to allow visitation. Before the court could hold a hearing on denial of summer visitation, Mother denied Father visitation for the Thanksgiving holiday because he had recently been sick, she wanted him to take a COVID-19 test, and he refused.
[¶8] In December, the court held an evidentiary hearing on custody modification2 and whether to hold Mother in contempt. At the close of evidence, the court resolved its position on Father's contempt motion but reserved its ruling on custody modification until the following month. It held Mother in contempt as to both summer and Thanksgiving visitation. As to summer, the court found that the order clearly stated Mother and Father each got two uninterrupted weeks and then Father got the summer; the provisions made sense when they were read together; and though the provisions may not have been exactly what the court intended, that is what it ordered. The court further noted that it did not issue a new order after the clarification conference, which suggested that it said exactly that at the conference. The court asked Father's counsel to draft the contempt order.
[¶9] On reconvening the following month to rule on custody modification, the court inadvertently ruled again on Father's contempt motion. It reiterated its previous ruling holding Mother in contempt for denying Thanksgiving visitation, noting that But then it announced a different holding about summer visitation, stating that the oral ruling at the divorce bench trial was very clear but there was no court reporter and both attorneys became confused as to what the court had ordered; some of the confusion may have been attributable to the circumstances under which the court gave the order, as there were "some fiery tempers"; and "there wasn't a willful violation of a clear order, especially in light of what got scratched out on the decree as to the summer."
[¶10] When Father's counsel expressed confusion about the conflicting rulings, as he had already drafted a contempt order stating the opposite, the court took a break to review its notes. On returning to the courtroom, the court apologized and explained that it made a mistake by not remembering the exact facts of the case. It confirmed its earlier ruling holding Mother in contempt for denying summer visitation.
[¶11] Thus, in its final order, the court held Mother in contempt for denying Father his court ordered summer and Thanksgiving visitation.
[¶12] To establish contempt, Father had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) there was an effective court order requiring certain conduct by Mother; (2) Mother had knowledge of the order; and (3) Mother wilfully disobeyed the order. See Heimer v. Heimer , 2021 WY 97, ¶ 15, 494 P.3d 472, 477 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Breen v. Black , 2020 WY 94, ¶ 11, 467 P.3d 1023, 1027 (Wyo. 2020) ). "Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that would persuade a finder of fact that the truth of the contention is highly probable." Id. (quoting Breen , ¶ 12, 467 P.3d at 1027 ).
[¶13] Mother appeals only the court's ruling that she willfully disobeyed the divorce decree. More specifically, she asserts that the divorce decree was not clear, specific, and unambiguous about summer visitation or how to handle Thanksgiving visitation during a pandemic. For her violation to have been willful the divorce decree must have been clear, specific, and unambiguous. Id. (citing Breen , ¶ 11, 467 P.3d at 1027 ).
[¶14] We will not interfere with the district court's order holding Mother in contempt "absent a serious procedural error, a violation of a principle of law, or a clear and grave abuse of discretion." Id. ¶ 17, 494 P.3d at 478 (quoting Breen , ¶ 8, 467 P.3d at 1026 ). In reviewing how the district court exercised its broad discretion under its contempt power, our task is to determine whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. Id. ¶ 31, 494 P.3d at 481 (citing Jenkins v. Jenkins , 2020 WY 120, ¶ 5, 472 P.3d 370, 372–73 (Wyo. 2020) ).
[¶15] The question here is whether the district court could reasonably conclude that the divorce decree was...
To continue reading
Request your trial