Carroll v. State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs.
Decision Date | 14 July 2022 |
Docket Number | S-22-0033 |
Citation | 2022 WY 88 |
Parties | MICHAEL SCOTT CARROLL, II, Appellant (Respondent), v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, Appellee (Petitioner), and MIRANDA CHRISTINE GIBSON, Appellee (Respondent). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge
Representing Appellant (Respondent): Michael S. Carroll, II Pro Se.
Representing Appellee (Petitioner) The State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement Division: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Misha Westby, Deputy Attorney General; Christina F. McCabe, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Wendy S. Ross, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Representing Appellee (Respondent): No appearance.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.
[¶1] The Department of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement Division ("Department") petitioned the district court to modify Michael Scott Carroll, II's 2012 child support order. Mr. Carroll answered and requested the court relieve him of his child support arrears. He claimed the statutory minimum child support obligation of $50 was unconstitutional. The district court denied his request for relief, modified the child support order, and ordered Mr Carroll to pay $4,596.71 in child support arrears. Mr. Carroll appealed, and we affirm.
[¶2] Mr. Carroll raises one issue, which we rephrase as whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied his request for relief from the 2012 child support order.
[¶3] This is the third time Mr. Carroll has brought his child support dispute to this Court.
Carroll v. Gibson, 2021 WY 59, ¶¶ 5-7, 485 P.3d 1004, 1006 (Wyo. 2021) (footnotes omitted).
[¶4] In his second appeal in 2021, Mr. Carroll moved for relief from the child support order under W.R.C.P. 60(b)(4), claiming the order was void because Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304(b) was unconstitutional. Id. at ¶ 10, 485 P.3d at 1007. We held W.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) could not relieve Mr. Carroll from the child support order "because even if Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304(b) is unconstitutional and the district court impermissibly applied an irrebuttable presumption to calculate Mr. Carroll's child support obligation, the order would not be void." Id. at ¶ 18, 485 P.3d at 1009. Carroll, 2021 WY 59, ¶ 5 n.2, 485 P.3d at 1006 n.2 (quoting Webb v. State ex rel. Dep't of Fam. Servs., Child Support Enf't Div., 2020 WY 111, ¶ 6, 471 P.3d 289, 291 (Wyo. 2020)).
[¶5] The Department then petitioned the district court to modify the 2012 child support order. It requested Mr. Carroll's child support be reduced for the reason that Mr. Carroll was incarcerated retroactive to July 1, 2018. It also requested the district court enter judgment on Mr. Carroll's child support arrears. In response, Mr. Carroll requested the district court relieve him of all child support arrears because § 20-2-304(b) was unconstitutional. The court held a hearing and entered an order modifying Mr. Carroll's child support obligation to $0, retroactive to July 1, 2018. It denied Mr. Carroll's request for relief and ordered him to pay $4,596.71 in child support arrears. Mr. Carroll timely appealed.
[¶6] Mr. Carroll's request for relief was in substance a W.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) motion.[1] See Essex Holding, LLC v. Basic Properties, Inc., 2018 WY 111, ¶ 33, 427 P.3d 708, 717 (Wyo. 2018) () (citations omitted). A trial court has discretion to deny relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b)(6), and we review the denial of relief for abuse of discretion. Est. of Dahlke ex rel. Jubie v. Dahlke, 2014 WY 29, ¶ 27, 319 P.3d 116, 124 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Vanasse v. Ramsay, 847 P.2d 993, 996 (Wyo. 1993)). "An abuse of discretion occurs where the district court could not reasonably have concluded as it did." Bartel v. West, 2015 WY 136, ¶ 12, 357 P.3d 1166, 1169 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Drury v. State, 2008 WY 130, ¶ 8, 194 P.3d 1017, 1019 (Wyo. 2008)). The movant has the burden to "bring his cause within the claimed grounds of relief and to substantiate these claims with adequate proof." SWC Prod., Inc. v. World Energy Partners, LLC, 2019 WY 95, ¶ 5, 448 P.3d 856, 858 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Painovich v. Painovich, 2009 WY 116, ¶ 5, 216 P.3d 501, 503 (Wyo. 2009)). "An order denying relief will be reversed only if the trial court was clearly wrong." Id. (citing Painovich, 2009 WY 116, ¶ 5, 216 P.3d at 503).
[¶7] Mr. Carroll argues the district court abused its discretion when it entered a judgment ordering him to pay $4,596.71 in child support arrears because Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304(b) was unconstitutional. He contends the now-repealed statute was unconstitutional because it created an irrebuttable statutory minimum child support obligation of $50 per month in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 667(b)(2).
[¶8] An appellant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must show "the existence of unusual circumstances that justify the extraordinary relief requested." Webb v. State ex rel. Dep't of Fam. Servs., Child Support Enf't Div., 2020 WY 111, ¶ 10, 471 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Essex Holding, 2018 WY 111, ¶ 72, 427 P.3d at 729). Mr. Carroll did not do so, and the district court thus did not abuse its discretion.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aimone v. Aimone
... ... in the family ranch. In Appeal No. S-22-0213, the ... Aimones' ... of the Home Ranch that includes federal and state ... leases. The "Rasmussen" parcel is 160 acres ... of discretion. Carroll v. State ex rel. Dep't of Fam ... Servs., Child ... ...