Daulton v. Daulton, 88-277
| Decision Date | 26 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-277,88-277 |
| Parties | Everett Earl DAULTON, Appellant (Defendant), v. Patricia Benson DAULTON, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Robert B. Carroll, Cheyenne, for appellant.
Paul Kapp of Godfrey, Sundahl & Jorgenson, Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before CARDINE, C.J., THOMAS, MACY, and GOLDEN, JJ., and SPANGLER, D.J.
This case was commenced by appellee Patricia Daulton suing for collection of back child support based upon a separation agreement filed in a North Carolina divorce. Appellant Everett Daulton counterclaimed, alleging that the agreement was invalid and asking that he be awarded child custody and support. Appellee filed requests for admissions, including an admission as to the validity of the separation agreement. Appellant failed to respond within the time allowed by W.R.C.P. 36(a). Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment as to the validity of the agreement. The motion was granted. The case then proceeded to trial on the question of back child support. This appeal is from the judgment against appellant for $2,894.34 back child support plus attorney's fees and from the denial of the counterclaim.
We affirm.
Appellant frames the issues as follows:
I. Did the trial court err in granting partial summary judgment based on request for admissions not being timely answered and opposing affidavits not being filed?
II. Did the trial court err in bifurcating the complaint and counterclaim, and retaining jurisdiction after determining the complaint was for recovery on a contract in an amount under seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00)?
III. Did the trial court err as a matter of law in finding that the separation agreement was a valid contract based solely on the failure of a non-resident party to timely answer request for admissions?
We will address issues I and III together. Appellant presents various arguments challenging the summary judgment procedure, explaining why the answers to the requests for admissions were not filed in time and attacking the validity of the separation agreement. All of this is beside the point. The summary judgment ruling was not necessary. When appellant failed, without just reason, to respond in a timely manner to the requests for admissions, the validity of the agreement was admitted. W.R.C.P. 36(a).
Appellant also challenges the jurisdiction of the trial court because the original claim by appellee was for less than $7,000. Wyo.Stat. § 5-5-131 (1977) places exclusive jurisdiction in the county court when the prayer for relief does not exceed $7,000. However, the initial complaint in this case raised and prayed for more than recovery of a contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bird v. Rozier
...the district court of jurisdiction over such claims. Joslyn v. Professional Realty, 622 P.2d 1369, 1373 (Wyo.1981). See Daulton v. Daulton, 774 P.2d 635 (Wyo.1989). In pertinent part, the relief sought by Bird is described by him in his WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Chester L. Bird, prays for and o......
-
Munoz v. Munoz
...130 L.Ed.2d 127 (1994); Matter of Adoption of BBC, 831 P.2d 197 (Wyo.1992); Secrest v. Secrest, 781 P.2d 1339 (Wyo.1989); Daulton v. Daulton, 774 P.2d 635 (Wyo.1989); Edwards v. Edwards, 732 P.2d 1068 (Wyo.1987); Fink v. Fink, 685 P.2d 34 (Wyo.1984); Cubin v. Cubin, 685 P.2d 680 (Wyo.1984).......
-
Secrest v. Secrest, 89-55
...in various ways that we will not consider issues on appeal unless we are presented with a cogent argument and authority. Daulton v. Daulton, 774 P.2d 635 (Wyo.1989); Edwards v. Edwards, 732 P.2d 1068 (Wyo.1987). We continue to decline to do Affirmed. 1 The transcript contains statements tha......