Webb v. State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs.
| Decision Date | 26 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | S-20-0031 |
| Parties | Clint Raymond WEBB, Appellant (Respondent), v. STATE of Wyoming, EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, Appellee (Petitioner), and Julie Alia Webb, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Pro se.
Representing Appellee State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement Division: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General: Misha Westby, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Wendy S. Ross, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Representing Appellee Julie Alia Webb: Pro se.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] The district court ordered Clint Raymond Webb (Clint) to pay $50 a month in child support to Julie Alia Webb (Julie) as part of the parties’ divorce decree.1 Several years later, Clint filed a motion to modify and correct the child support order, arguing it was unconstitutional because it conflicted with federal law. The district court denied the motion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
[¶2] The dispositive issue is:
Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Clint's "Motion to Modify and Correct Unconstitutional Child Support Order"?
[¶3] Clint and Julie were married in 2000. They had two children who were born in 2001 and 2007. The parties separated in April 2014, and Julie filed for divorce on June 26, 2014. A few days later, Clint drove his vehicle into Julie's vehicle. He left the scene, only to return and attempt to hit her as she was standing outside her disabled vehicle. A jury convicted him of two counts of aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon, one count of felony property destruction, and one count of attempted second degree murder. He was sentenced to a total term of 35-52 years imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. See Webb v. State , 2017 WY 108, 401 P.3d 914 (Wyo. 2017).
[¶4] In March 2016, after Clint's criminal trial had concluded, the district court held a bench trial in the divorce proceedings. Per the district court's request, Clint and Julie each submitted proposed divorce decrees for the court's consideration. Relevant here, Clint proposed paying $50 per month in child support beginning March 15, 2016. He noted he had no income and a limited ability to earn an income in the future. He stated the proposed amount was required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304(b) (LexisNexis 2015), which, at that time, provided that "in no case shall the support obligation be less than fifty dollars ($50.00) per month." He recognized he owed back child support totaling $800. Julie also proposed Clint's child support obligation be $50 a month pursuant to § 20-2-304(b) but suggested the support obligation begin on June 1, 2016. She noted, however, that " [Wyo. Stat. Ann.] § 20-2-307 states that a presumptive child support calculation creates a rebuttable presumption, and a court may deviate upon a specific finding that the application of presumptive child support would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case."
[¶5] The district court entered the divorce decree on July 8, 2016. Pursuant to § 20-2-304(b), it ordered Clint to pay $50 a month in child support beginning May 1, 2016. It also ordered him to pay $900 in back child support. Clint did not appeal from the divorce decree. In October 2016, the parties notified the district court that although Clint had paid only some of the $900 in back child support, they had agreed to deem this obligation satisfied. The district court entered an order approving the parties’ agreement.
[¶6] Approximately two years later, in July 2018, the Wyoming Legislature repealed § 20-2-304(b). See 2018 Wyo. Sess. Laws, Ch. 42, §§ 2-3 (H.B. 17). In December 2018, Clint filed a pro se "Motion to Modify and Correct Unconstitutional Child Support Order," arguing the district court's order requiring him to pay $50 in child support pursuant to § 20-2-304(b) was unconstitutional. According to him, the $50 minimum child support amount mandated by § 20-2-304(b) was irrebuttable and therefore conflicted with 42 U.S.C. § 667(b)(2), which requires states to make presumptive child support amounts rebuttable as a condition of receiving federal funds for the purpose of maintaining a child support enforcement program.2 See Title IV, Part D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651 - 669b. He sought reversal of the child support order, modification of any arrearages, and reimbursement for all child support paid. A few months later, the State filed a petition to modify the child support order in accordance with existing guidelines and to enter a judgment for any past due child support.3 Clint responded to the State's petition, reiterating the child support order was unconstitutional and therefore any arrearages should be dismissed and he should be reimbursed for the child support he had already paid.
[¶7] The district court granted the State's petition after a hearing. It modified Clint's child support obligation to $0, retroactive for four months for a total credit of $200. It found Clint to be in arrears $812.90. After applying the $200 credit, it ordered Clint to pay $612.90. In the same order, the district court denied Clint's "Motion to Modify and Correct Unconstitutional Child Support" because he did not serve Julie with the motion; the divorce was final on July 8, 2016, and neither party appealed; both parties stipulated to satisfaction of the back child support order resulting from the divorce decree; and there was no controlling authority indicating § 20-2-304(b) was unconstitutional. This pro se appeal followed.
[¶8] Clint appeals from the district court's denial of his "Motion to Modify and Correct Unconstitutional Child Support Order." He and the State agree this motion was equivalent to a motion under Rule 60(b)(6), which allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order for "any other reason that justifies relief." We review the denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for an abuse of discretion. See Olson v. Schriner , 2020 WY 36, ¶ 15, 459 P.3d 453, 458 (Wyo. 2020). "A court abuses its discretion when it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances." McBride-Kramer v. Kramer , 2019 WY 10, ¶ 11, 433 P.3d 529, 532 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Three Way, Inc. v. Burton Enters., Inc. , 2008 WY 18, ¶ 16, 177 P.3d 219, 225 (Wyo. 2008) ) (other citation omitted). "[T]he ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did." Id .
[¶9] Clint repeats his argument that the $50 child support order was unconstitutional because it was rendered pursuant to the now-repealed § 20-2-304(b) which conflicted with federal law. He also argues for the first time on appeal that (1) he was denied his rights to due process and equal protection because he was not given an opportunity to rebut the mandatory minimum $50 child support amount; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay $50 per month in child support as it should have deviated from that amount due to his inability to earn an income while incarcerated.
[¶10] To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), Clint had to " ‘show the existence of unusual circumstances that justify the extraordinary relief requested.’ " Essex Holding, LLC v. Basic Props., Inc. , 2018 WY 111, ¶ 72, 427 P.3d 708, 729 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting United States v. 31.63 Acres of Land , 840 F.2d 760, 761 (10th Cir. 1988) ). He failed to satisfy his burden for two reasons.
[¶11] First, Clint advocated for the $50 child support order in his proposed divorce decree. Although he stated such order was required under § 20-2-304(b), he did not argue at that time the statute was unconstitutional. Yet, in his motion to modify and correct, he relied on cases from New York and Washington, wherein the courts declared their respective states’ mandatory minimum child support obligations unconstitutional because they were irrebuttable and therefore conflicted with federal law. See In re Marriage of Gilbert , 88 Wash.App. 362, 945 P.2d 238, 241-42 (1997) ; Pickering v. Langdon , 1994 WL 568588, *2-3 ) (citing Rose ex rel. Clancy v. Moody , 83 N.Y.2d 65, 607 N.Y.S.2d 906, 907-09, 629 N.E.2d 378, 380-81 (N.Y. 1993) ); In re Haney v. Haney , 592 N.Y.S.2d 531, 188 A.D.2d 999, 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). These cases were all decided before the divorce decree was entered in this case.4 Clint provides no justification for not raising his argument that § 20-2-304(b) was unconstitutional prior to the divorce decree. Rule 60(b)(6) relief is not available in such circumstances. See Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. , 741 F.3d 1349, 1357 (11th Cir. 2014) ().5 See also , 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Civ. § 2864 (3d ed. April 2020 update) ( ).
[¶12] Similarly, Clint could have tried to rebut the $50 child support obligation or requested a deviation from it at the time of the divorce decree. At that time, he was incarcerated and knew his ability to earn any income in the future was severely limited. Indeed, he noted his incarceration and income limitations in his proposed divorce decree; yet, he did not seek relief from the $50 child support obligation. He failed to do so even though Julie recognized in her proposed divorce decree the presumptive child support calculation was rebuttable under § 20-2-307 and a court could deviate therefrom upon a showing that application of the presumptive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Groskop v. S&T Bank
-
Carroll v. Gibson
...unconstitutional were decided before the divorce decree was entered—and he could have appealed the divorce decree. See Webb , ¶¶ 11–13, 471 P.3d at 292–93 (affirming denial of Mr. Webb's Rule 60(b)(6) motion because he could have raised his argument that § 20-2-304(b) is unconstitutional be......
-
Carroll v. State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs.
...agreed to pay $50 per month in child support in his divorce decree, the minimum amount prescribed by § 20-2-304(b). 2020 WY 111, ¶ 4, 471 P.3d at 291. the legislature repealed § 20-2-304(b), Mr. Webb petitioned the district court under Rule 60(b)(6) to modify the divorce decree and relieve ......