Snowden v. Jaure
| Decision Date | 21 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | S-21-0032 |
| Parties | SIERRA JADE SNOWDEN, Appellant (Respondent), v. TONY TYRONE JAURE, Appellee (Petitioner). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County The Honorable Dawnessa A. Snyder, Judge
Representing Appellant: Stacy L. Rostad of Rostad Law, LLC Laramie, Wyoming
Representing Appellee: Mary Katherine "Katye" Brown of Woodhouse Roden Nethercott, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming
Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS [*] , KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] Sierra Snowden ("Mother") appeals the district court's decision to grant Tony Jaure's ("Father") petition to modify child support. On appeal, she claims the district court improperly imputed her net monthly income at $3, 975. We affirm, and we deny Father's request for attorney fees and costs under Rule 10.05(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure ("W.R.A.P.").
[¶2] There are two issues on appeal, which we state as follows:
[¶3] Mother and Father have one minor child, born in 2010. On August 29, 2018, the district court modified the parties' original parenting agreement entered on October 13, 2011. It modified custody, visitation, and support, and it awarded Mother and Father joint legal custody, with Father having primary physical and residential custody of the minor child. Mother was ordered to pay child support to Father in the amount of $245.33 per month.
[¶4] Approximately fifteen months later, on December 2, 2019 Father filed a petition to modify child support, alleging that he had a good faith belief that Mother's income had increased by more than twenty percent and that this increase warranted a change in child support. On January 6, 2020, Mother filed her answer and a counterclaim, which sought to modify custody, visitation, and support. Father filed an answer on January 27, 2020.
[¶5] Father filed a confidential financial affidavit claiming a net monthly income of approximately $2, 300 on February 28, 2020. On August 25, 2020, Mother filed a confidential financial affidavit claiming a net monthly income of $0.00. The district court held a hearing on the pending claims on September 23, 2020.
[¶6] At the hearing, Mother testified that she had been employed in the oil and gas industry, but that she was currently laid off. She testified that before she was laid off, she received a salary of $5, 300[1] per month. Mother said she was laid off because of the downturn in the oil and gas industry and the coronavirus pandemic. She also indicated that because of the coronavirus, she did not want her younger children in daycare, so she did not seek other temporary employment and stayed home to care for them. However, she testified that she expected to return to her employment in either October or November of 2020, although she was not sure whether she would receive her previous salary when she returned. Mother also testified that she has a cosmetology license and that sometime in 2018 she worked for a short period as a hairdresser to earn money to pay child support.
[¶7] Father testified that he was an employee for TBK Rental and Sales, making $35 an hour. He said that this was the same employment he had when child support was originally calculated. Father's confidential financial affidavit indicated that he worked 20 to 40 hours a week, but his gross income was reported at only 20 hours per week in the affidavit.
[¶8] The district court found that there was no material change in circumstances to warrant a change in custody or visitation, and it therefore denied Mother's petition. However, the court did find a material change in circumstances since its order regarding child support. Based on Father's confidential financial affidavit and testimony, it imputed Father's net monthly income at $4, 550.00. It derived its calculation from Father's $35.00 per hour wage at 40 hours per week and a 25% deduction from that. Based on Mother's confidential financial affidavit and testimony, the court imputed Mother's net monthly income at $3, 975.00. It based this calculation on Mother's testimony that she earned $5, 300.00 gross income per month and applied the same 25% deduction it used to calculate Father's net income.
[¶9] Using these figures, the court calculated a presumptive child support obligation for both parents at $1, 279.82 per month. It found Mother's share of the total presumptive child support obligation to be $596.75 per month. The increased child support was to first come due on October 1, 2020, and thus was prospective only, with no arrearages or retroactive child support awarded. The district court therefore simply adjusted future support to the amount it could impute based on the evidence before it.
[¶10] Mother timely appealed the district court's decision to impute her income and modify child support. Father requests attorney's fees and costs incurred in responding to Mother's appeal pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05(b).
[¶11] We review a district court's order modifying child support, including a decision to impute income, for an abuse of discretion. Marquis v. Marquis, 2020 WY 141, ¶ 20, 476 P.3d 212, 218 (Wyo. 2020); Barrett-Oliver v. Quast, 2013 WY 71, ¶ 8, 302 P.3d 909, 911 (Wyo. 2013). Child support determinations are left to the court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse. Zupan v. Zupan, 2016 WY 78, ¶ 5, 377 P.3d 770, 772-73 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Bagley v. Bagley, 2013 WY 126, ¶ 6, 311 P.3d 141, 143 (Wyo. 2013)). "In determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred, our core inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court's decision." Zupan, ¶ 5, 377 P.3d at 772-73 (quoting Bagley, ¶ 6, 311 P.3d at 143).
A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. Our review entails evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court's decision, and we afford the prevailing party every favorable inference while omitting any consideration of evidence presented by the unsuccessful party. Findings of fact not supported by the evidence, contrary to the evidence, or against the great weight of the evidence cannot be sustained.
Bruce v. Bruce, 2021 WY 38, ¶ 12, 482 P.3d 328, 332 (Wyo. 2021) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Edwards v. Edwards, 2020 WY 35, ¶ 10, 459 P.3d 448, 450 (Wyo. 2020)).
[¶12] Mother challenges the district court's decision to impute an income of $3, 975.00 for purposes of calculating her child support. She contends that she was not voluntarily unemployed, and that therefore the district court's decision to impute income lacked evidentiary support.
[¶13] A parent's net monthly income is used to calculate presumptive child support and to determine whether there is a change in income justifying modification of the support order. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-311(a) (LexisNexis 2021); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304; Lemus v. Martinez, 2019 WY 52, ¶ 19, 441 P.3d 831, 836 (Wyo. 2019). To determine each parent's net monthly income, the court begins by using the statutory definitions in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-303(a)(ii) and (iii):
[¶14] Gross income for determining child support includes "potential income of parents who are voluntarily unemployed or underemployed[.]" Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-303(a)(ii). In such a case, the parent's gross income is computed using potential earning capacity based on the following factors:
To continue reading
Request your trial