Case Title: Underkofler v. Underkofler

Citation: 

Docket Number: 92-28

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1992-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Underkofler v. Underkofler1992 WY 77834 P.2d 1140Case Number: 92-28Decided: 07/08/1992Supreme Court of Wyoming
Ronald D. 
UNDERKOFLER,

 Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

Guadalupe Victoria 
UNDERKOFLER, 

Appellee 
(Defendant).

Appeal from District 
Court, UintaCounty, John D. Troughton, 
J.

Lisa C. Sweeney 
of Sweeney Law Office, Laramie, for appellant.

Gregory A. 
Phillips of Phillips Law Offices, Evanston, for appellee.

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

* Chief Justice at the 
time of oral argument.

MACY, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Ronald 
D. Underkofler, the husband in this divorce action, challenges the district 
court's decree fixing his child support payments at $300 per month, awarding 
certain property to Appellee Guadalupe Victoria Underkofler, the wife, as well 
as granting attorney's fees on behalf of the wife.

[¶2]      We affirm in part 
and remand in part.

[¶3]      The husband 
presents these issues:

     I. Whether the trial 
court abused its discretion by not appropriately applying the Wyoming child support 
guidelines in this case in determining the initial child support obligation of 
[the husband]?

     II. Whether the trial 
court erroneously awarded property to [the wife]?

     [III]. Whether the 
court abused its discretion by awarding alimony to [the wife]?

     [IV]. Whether the 
court erred in awarding [the wife] $1,000 in attorney's fees?

[¶4]      The parties 
solemnized their marriage in December 1978. They had three children, the 
youngest child being a minor at the time of the divorce action. The parties 
agreed that the wife would have custody of the minor child and that the husband 
would pay child support.

[¶5]      The principal 
issue in this case is whether the district court abused its discretion by 
setting the child support payments at $300 per month or twenty percent of the 
husband's net income, whichever was greater. The husband contends that the 
district court abused its discretion in failing to strictly apply the child 
support guidelines found in Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-304 (Supp. 1991). He presented 
himself as earning a net income of much less than $1,500 per month. On the basis 
of the evidence it heard, the district court presumed that the husband earned at 
least $1,500 per month. The husband's testimony was that in 1990 he earned just 
over $5,000 and won a lottery prize of $5,000. But the district court also 
considered the fact that the husband spent the entire proceeds of an $11,000 
certificate of deposit during that time. The husband contends in his reply brief 
that the $11,000 cannot be considered as income. The governing statute does not 
support his reasoning. See Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-301(a)(i) (Supp. 1991). The 
husband's overall lack of credibility was well displayed in the record. He 
withdrew the $11,000 certificate of deposit just before he filed for divorce, he 
transferred virtually all his other valuable personal property to others, and he 
was not able to produce any substantial evidence to show that consideration had 
been paid for the property. The record also manifested the husband's ability to 
earn much more than he testified that he earned, and the reality was that the 
husband simply was not "working" or that, if he was working, his income was 
easily concealable. The district court concluded that, if it were to set child 
support payments at a percentage of the husband's income, it would be performing 
a futile act, for in all likelihood the husband's support obligation would be 
nothing. Under these circumstances, we detect no abuse of discretion. See Hasty 
v. Hasty, 828 P.2d 94 
(Wyo. 1992); and Morehead v. Morehead, 811 P.2d 721 (Wyo. 1991). The district 
court fulfilled the requirements for deviation from the child support 
guidelines, and we affirm the level of child support assigned by the district 
court. See Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-302(b) (Supp. 
1991).

[¶6]      The husband 
contends that the district court abused its discretion by awarding most of the 
marital property to the wife. Taking into consideration the husband's property 
transfers to others, his expenditure of the proceeds of the certificate of 
deposit, and his failure to support his wife and minor child during the pendency 
of the divorce action, we are unable to hold that the district court abused its 
discretion. We affirm the district court's award of the property. See Mair v. 
Mair, 823 P.2d 538 
(Wyo. 
1992).

[¶7]      The husband 
contends that the district court abused its discretion by awarding alimony to 
the wife of one dollar per month. In making the award, the district court 
indicated that the allowance was designed to provide a mechanism for 
compensating the wife in the future should she discover that the husband had 
concealed or transferred other marital assets of which the wife was not aware at 
the time the decree was entered. A district court has discretion to decree 
reasonable alimony. Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-114 (1987). The district 
court also has statutory authority to revise a decree with respect to the amount 
of an alimony award. Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-116 (1987). Our 
jurisprudence establishes that a change of circumstances is necessary for that 
authority to be invoked. Dorr v. Newman, 785 P.2d 1172, 1178 
(Wyo. 1990). 
The decision to modify an alimony award is an exercise of discretion which will 
not be adjusted on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Id.; Parry v. Parry, 766 P.2d 1168, 1171 
(Wyo. 1989). 
It is apparent from the record that the district court, in establishing child 
support and alimony amounts, took into account property and income available to 
the husband. It is also evident that the district court might have awarded 
increased child support and/or alimony payments if other property or income had 
been available for that purpose. We hold that the award of alimony was 
reasonable and that no abuse of discretion exists under these circumstances. 
While the district court articulated a premise upon which it would likely adjust 
the alimony amount, the existence of any change of circumstances could serve to 
justify revision of the alimony award. Section 20-2-116.

[¶8]      The husband also 
contends that the district court erred in awarding attorney's fees to the wife 
without requiring sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reasonableness of those 
fees. We cannot disagree with that objection because we have frequently held 
that the record must contain such evidence. However, the district court made the 
award without giving the wife a full opportunity to enter such evidence on the 
record. Therefore, we vacate that portion of the decree awarding the attorney's 
fees with directions that the district court consider an award of attorney's 
fees after the wife has had the opportunity to submit sufficient evidence to 
establish the reasonableness of such fees. See Delgado v. Delgado, 773 P.2d 446 (Wyo. 1989).

[¶9]      Affirmed, with 
the exception of the remand necessary to more fully consider the matter of 
attorney's fees.