Corbitt v. Davidson

• Docket Number: S-22-0308
• Decision Date: 12 July 2023
• Citation: 2023 WY 69
• Parties: MARY ELIZABETH CORBITT f/k/a MARY ELIZABETH DAVIDSON, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. MICHAEL AARON DAVIDSON, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

1

2023 WY 69

MARY ELIZABETH CORBITT f/k/a MARY ELIZABETH DAVIDSON, Appellant (Plaintiff),
v.
MICHAEL AARON DAVIDSON, Appellee (Defendant).

No. S-22-0308

Supreme Court of Wyoming

July 12, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County The Honorable Suzannah G. Robinson, Judge

Representing Appellant: Rennie Phillips, Rennie Phillips Law, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Elizabeth A. Lempp, Eric Phillips Law Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

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

BOOMGAARDEN, JUSTICE

2

[¶1] Mary Elizabeth Corbitt (Mother) challenges the district court's order modifying Michael Aaron Davidson's (Father) child support. She contends the court abused its discretion when it calculated Father's net monthly income without first obtaining sufficient financial information. She also contends the court abused its discretion by calculating her net monthly income contrary to the evidence presented. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] We rephrase the issues as:

I. Whether the district court had sufficient financial information to calculate Father's net monthly income

II. Whether the district court abused its discretion by calculating Mother's net monthly income contrary to the evidence presented.

FACTS

[¶3] Mother and Father divorced in 2017. They had three minor children at that time. The parties' divorce decree incorporated a child custody agreement wherein they agreed to joint legal custody and split physical custody with visitation. Mother had physical custody of two minor children and Father had physical custody of one minor child. The parties also agreed Father would pay monthly child support in the amount of $3,500.00. The child custody agreement did not state the parties' net monthly incomes used to calculate child support. Prior to and following the divorce, Mother worked at a credit union and Father worked as a chiropractor at Davidson Chiropractic Clinic.

[¶4] Father filed a petition to modify child support in May 2021. In the petition, Father asserted a modification of child support was appropriate because two of the parties' children had reached the age of majority, more than six months had passed since the entry of the divorce decree with no child support modification, and his child support obligation would change by 20 percent or more. Mother responded and requested the court deny Father's petition. She also filed a confidential financial affidavit indicating her net monthly income was $1,635.96. She attached two pay stubs, her tax returns for 2018 and 2019, and W-2 forms from 2018 and 2019.^[1] Father filed a confidential financial affidavit in June 2021 indicating his net monthly income was $5,755.39. He attached three pay stubs.

3

[¶5] In March 2022, Mother filed a motion to compel discovery seeking various documents from Father related to his business. The court held a hearing on the motion the next month. In its written order, the court determined both parties failed to file sufficient financial affidavits and incorrectly calculated their net monthly incomes. It ordered both parties to update their financial affidavits prior to the child support hearing.

[¶6] Both parties filed updated financial affidavits. Mother calculated her net monthly income to be $1,745.24 and attached one pay stub reflecting her earnings from January through March 2022, her W-2 for 2021, and her 2020 tax return. Father calculated his net monthly income to be $9,513.59 for employment income, and $3,788.75 for selfemployment income. Father attached several documents, including his 2020 and 2021 tax returns, 14 pay stubs ranging from August 2021 through February 2022, and a profit and loss statement for Davidson Chiropractic Clinic for January through December 2019 and 2020.

[¶7] At the child support hearing, the district court heard testimony from both parties. The court presented its oral ruling the next month. In so ruling, it determined there had been a substantial change in circumstances which justified modification of the original child support order. It then explained Father's net monthly income was "difficult to determine[]" but it "can't just choose to not make a determination. The Court has to make a determination and do the best that it can with the information before it so that's what I am going to do." The court also noted it reviewed and relied on all the information presented along with the parties' testimony. However, the court acknowledged both parties had been loose with financial figures and had credibility issues.

[¶8] The court found Mother's net monthly income to be $2,695.93. It stated its calculation was based on Mother's most recent pay stub attached to her updated financial affidavit. It determined Mother's gross income from the 84 days between January and March reflected in the pay stub. It then deducted Mother's taxes and a bonus payment because no testimony indicated Mother regularly received bonus payments. The court did not deduct Mother's insurance payments because she was not required to provide insurance for the minor child. After the deductions, the court divided the total net income by 84 to determine a daily income, calculated a yearly income by multiplying that number by 365, and reached the net...