Case Title: SHIRLEY SECREST v. ROBERT SECREST

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1989-10-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
SHIRLEY SECREST v. ROBERT SECREST1989 WY 193781 P.2d 1339Case Number: 89-55Decided: 10/27/1989Supreme Court of Wyoming
SHIRLEY SECREST, 
APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF),

v.

ROBERT SECREST, APPELLEE 
(DEFENDANT).

Appeal from the District 
Court, NatronaCounty, Harry E. Leimback, 
J.

Shirley Secrest, 
pro se.

Kathleen Audette 
Rideout, Casper, 
for appellee.

Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY 
and GOLDEN, JJ.

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     Appellant Shirley 
Secrest appeals from a judgment which ordered appellee Robert Secrest to pay 
child support arrearages, medical and travel expenses incurred for their 
daughter, and attorney's fees.

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     Appellant raises the 
following issues for our review:

I. Did the District Court 
err when it reduced the accrued child support arrearages 
retroactively?

II. Did the District 
Court err when it failed to find Appellee in contempt for failure to maintain 
the health insurance policy or, in the alternative, provide the necessary 
funding to continue the medical treatment?

III. Did the District 
Court err when it assessed the Appellant one-half of the travel expenses for 
Sally Secrest's medical travel?

IV. Did the District 
Court err and abuse its discretion when it failed to apply sanctions upon 
Appellee for his contempt?

V. Did the District Court 
err when it failed to find Appellee in violation of the Decree of Divorce and 
compel him to maintain the life/savings policy and its cash 
value?

VI. Did the District 
Court err and abuse its discretion and further display bias and prejudice 
towards Appellant in its rulings, denying immediate payments of back child 
support, partial award of medical travel expenses, partial award of attorney 
fees and denial of enforcement of prior orders and decrees, based on Appellee's 
alleged inability to pay?

[¶4.]     Appellant (the mother) 
and appellee (the father) were divorced on August 1, 1986. The decree of divorce 
awarded custody of their daughter, Sally, to the mother and ordered the father 
to pay $300 per month child support to the mother through the clerk of the 
district court. In addition, the decree ordered the father to provide life and 
health insurance for Sally and to pay one-half of the medical expenses not 
covered by insurance.

[¶5.]     On May 29, 1987, the 
mother was served with the father's motion for an order to show cause, two 
affidavits, and the court's order to show cause why, among other things, the 
father should not pay child support to the party having custody of Sally in the 
event she was not in the care, custody, and control of the mother. On June 18, 
1987, the mother filed a motion for an order to show cause why the father should 
not comply with that part of the decree of divorce pertaining to insurance and 
child support. On August 25, 1987, the court entered its order after hearing the 
evidence on the show cause orders at a hearing held June 22, 1987. Although the 
order directed the father to make semi-monthly child support payments to the 
clerk of the district court in the amount of $150 each, the court did not 
address whether the payments should go to the party who had the actual care, 
custody, and control of Sally.

[¶6.]     On September 23, 1988, 
the mother again moved the court for an order directing the father to appear 
before the court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and jailed 
for his failure to pay child support and medical bills and his failure to 
maintain health insurance as previously ordered by the court. The mother also 
prayed that the amounts the father owed her be reduced to judgment and that she 
be awarded a reasonable amount for her attorney's fees. The court again ordered 
the father to appear and show cause why he should not be jailed for contempt and 
why the mother should not receive the other relief prayed for in her 
motion.

[¶7.]     The evidence produced 
at the show cause hearing held on January 12, 1989, with conflicts properly 
resolved in favor of the father, revealed the following facts. On the date of 
the parties' divorce, the father, an insurance salesman, maintained a Wisconsin 
National Life Insurance Company policy for Sally's health care expenses by 
selling insurance for that company. The policy lapsed on January 31, 1987, 
because the father's sales fell below the quota required to preserve the 
coverage. The mother could have extended the coverage by submitting a certain 
amount of claims every ninety days, but the father did not notify her of this 
constraint on the continuing coverage. Although the father subsequently obtained 
medical insurance for Sally, the insurance did not cover Sally's preexisting 
dental problem, and the mother had to pay $2,208.59 for such treatment. The 
mother expended an additional $2,700 for transporting Sally to Denver for medical 
treatment. That expense included the cost of trips between Denver and Sheridan during 
the periods of time Sally was residing in the Wyoming Girls' School at 
Sheridan, Wyoming. She was committed to the Wyoming 
Girls' School for a total of approximately nine months between August 1987 and 
December 16, 1988. The evidence also revealed that the father's income since the 
divorce steadily declined and that he has been unable to fully comply with the 
payment provisions of the decree and subsequent orders of the court due to lack 
of money.

[¶8.]     The district court 
found: (1) the father was in contempt of court for failing to make child support 
payments, resulting in arrearages of $900; (2) the mother was not entitled to 
receive child support payments for the periods of time Sally was living at the 
Wyoming Girls' School, as Sally was then in the custody of the Board of 
Charities and Reform; (3) the father should pay for Sally's medical and dental 
expenses not covered by the lapsed insurance policy he was ordered to maintain 
but that the failure to maintain such insurance policy was not willful or 
intentional and did not constitute contempt; (4) the father was liable for 
one-half of the medical travel expenses; and (5) because of the father's 
financial condition, he should be responsible for only $500 of the mother's 
attorney's fees. The court entered judgment in favor of the mother in accordance 
with the findings and decreed that the father could purge himself of contempt by 
paying the $900 for back child support within a reasonable time. This appeal is 
from that judgment.

Child 
Support

[¶9.]     The mother contends 
that the court erred as a matter of law when it reduced Sally's child support 
retroactively and directs our attention to Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-113(a) (1977), 
which provides in pertinent part:

An order for child 
support is not subject to retroactive modification except:

* * * * * 
*

(ii) The order may be 
modified with respect to any period during which a petition for modification is 
pending, but only from the date notice of that petition was given * * 
*.

Even assuming arguendo 
that the court reduced the child support arrearages,1 we hold that, in view of the 
above-quoted exception, the court did not err. The mother was given notice of 
the father's pending petition, which was couched in the form of a motion seeking 
to have child support paid to the party having custody of Sally, before Sally 
was committed to the Wyoming Girls' School,2 and the January 1989 order did not 
modify the child support provisions prior to that 
notification.

Abuse of 
Discretion

The mother's remaining 
issues, with the exception of her fifth issue, concern whether the court abused 
its discretion by not finding the father in contempt or by not awarding the 
mother judgment for the amounts she prayed for in her 
petition.

[¶10.]  We stated in Martin v. State, 720 P.2d 894, 897 (Wyo. 
1986), that judicial discretion is

a composite of many 
things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a 
sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances 
and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously.

We have also 
held that a court abuses its discretion when "it acts in a manner which exceeds 
the bounds of reason under the circumstances." Martinez v. State, 611 P.2d 831, 838 (Wyo. 
1980).

[¶11.]  The mother has not directed us to 
anything in the record which indicates that the court abused its discretion. Our 
examination of the record shows that the father's failure to reimburse the 
mother for the cost of medical treatment and travel not covered by insurance was 
not a willful act but was due to the father's financial condition which 
continued to deteriorate from the date of the divorce to the point where he has 
only enough money to live on. On cross-examination of the father, the following 
colloquy took place:

Q. Just a couple of brief 
questions.

Mr. Secrest, when you 
didn't pay child support for Sally Secrest, why was that?

A. Because I was informed 
that she was in Sheridan and not to pay, and also I was 
broke.

Q. Can you tell us about 
your finances from the time of the divorce?

A. Bad, real 
bad.

Q. Are you making the 
same amount of money that you were at the time of the 
divorce?

A. No, 
ma'am.

Q. For the Court's 
information, if you recall, how much money did you make in 1985? 

A. I don't know, probably 
about 40,000 or 50,000. I don't remember.

Q. Do you recall how much 
money you made in 1986?

A. I just know that it 
has been going steadily downhill.

Q. There was an 
allegation in the request for the show cause that you had not maintained a life 
insurance policy on Sally.

A. Yes[,] 
ma'am.

Q. Is that 
factual?

A. I tried to write a 
policy on Sally a couple of years ago but at one time I was unable to maintain 
that and I would have to come up with all the back premiums, and I wanted to 
start a new policy. It would have worked out that she would have had to cash in 
the policy and Mrs. Secrest did not want it. She wanted me to get the original 
one.

Up to this point, I have 
not had the money. I'm trying to survive.

Q. Are you willfully 
disobeying the Court's Order to get a life insurance 
policy?

A. No[,] 
ma'am.

Q. You were ordered to 
maintain health and accident insurance on Sally Secrest. Have you done 
that?

A. Yes[,] 
ma'am.

Q. Has she ever been not 
covered?

A. Not to my 
knowledge.

Q. When the Wisconsin 
National Life plan was terminated, did you have anything to do with terminating 
that?

A. No. I tried like the 
devil. That is why I had the letter to keep the coverage that I had, because 
-

Q. Was the termination 
willful on your part?

A. No[,] 
ma'am.

Q. Did you obtain other 
insurance?

A. Yes[,] 
ma'am.

Q. Concerning the hearing 
that was scheduled on November 10, were you willfully disobeying the Court's 
Order when you did not appear?

A. No[,] ma'am, I wasn't. 
I moved so darn many times. I'm trying to get started. I was booked solid for 
appointments. I had no money. I was booked for Thursday and Friday. As I said 
earlier to Mr. Marken, a fellow I had been trying to raise money from happened 
to be back in town and I got some money Thursday afternoon. The people I was 
supposed to see on Friday called and cancelled until the first of the year, so 
that is why I came up. I didn't come - I knew I could come up - At one time I 
planned to come to the Court hearing. I came up here. I did not come up here for 
Thanksgiving. It was just a one-time trip.

Q. Have you attempted to 
maintain compliance with the Court Orders?

A. Yes[,] 
ma'am[.]

[¶12.]  After examining and considering the 
record, particularly the unrefuted evidence that the father was financially 
unable to comply with the court's previous orders, we hold that the court did 
not abuse its discretion, or display any bias or prejudice, by not finding the 
father in contempt and by not ordering him to pay the full amount of the 
mother's attorney's fees and Sally's medical and travel 
expenses.

Life/Savings 
Policy

[¶13.]  The record reveals that the mother did 
not seek relief in her motion to show cause for the father's failure to maintain 
a life/savings insurance policy, and the court did not grant her any. The mother 
contends that "this Court should remand this matter to the District Court with 
directions to compel Appellee, under sanctions, to comply." If the father has 
not complied with a previous court order, it is the responsibility of the mother 
to bring it to the attention of the court and pray for relief and sanctions. The 
mother has failed to present a cogent argument or cite any authority to convince 
us that we should remand in this instance. We have previously stated 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 so.

[¶14.]  Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 The transcript contains 
statements that, at a November 10, 1988, hearing, the district court ordered the 
father to make his child support payments to the Board of Charities and Reform 
for the period Sally was at the Wyoming Girls' School. We find nothing in the 
record to verify the court's decision before January 12, 
1989.

2 Sally entered the 
Wyoming Girls' School during the month of August 1987 and was released October 
23, 1987. She again entered the Wyoming Girls' School May 26, 1988, and was 
released December 16, 1988 - a total period of approximately nine 
months.