Case Title: EVERETT EARL DAULTON v. PATRICIA BENSON DAULTON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1989-05-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
EVERETT EARL DAULTON v. PATRICIA BENSON DAULTON1989 WY 121774 P.2d 635Case Number: 88-277Decided: 05/26/1989Supreme Court of Wyoming

EVERETT EARL DAULTON, APPELLANT 
(DEFENDANT),

v.

PATRICIA BENSON DAULTON, 
APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).

Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty, Nicholas G. 
Kalokathis, J.

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.

SPANGLER, District 
Judge.

[¶1.]     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.

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     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?

[¶4.]     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).

[¶5.]     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 debt. In the second paragraph of the complaint, 
appellee asserts that the agreement grants her custody of the children. In her 
prayer for relief, she specifically requests the district court to grant her 
specific performance of all the terms in the separation agreement. Taking these 
portions of the complaint together, and reading the complaint liberally as a 
notice pleading, we conclude that appellee's complaint raised issues of child 
custody under Wyo. Stat. § 20-5-104 (1977). Doing so gave the district court 
subject matter jurisdiction over the initial action and engendered a compulsory 
counterclaim from appellant on those custody issues. Cf. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 627 P.2d 1381, 1383-84 (Wyo. 1981).

[¶6.]     Appellant raises a 
number of other points in his brief. It is not necessary for us to discuss them, 
as they either are raised for the first time on appeal or are not supported by 
cogent argument or persuasive legal authority. U.S. Aviation, Inc. v. Wyoming 
Avionics, Inc., 664 P.2d 121 (Wyo. 1983); 
Johnston v. Conoco, Inc., 758 P.2d 566 
(Wyo. 
1988).

[¶7.]     Accordingly, the 
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.