Title: Storseth v. Storseth

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Storseth v. Storseth1990 WY 53792 P.2d 243Case Number: 89-46Decided: 05/18/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
DONNA MAE STORSETH, 

APPELLANT 
(PLAINTIFF),

v.

DOUGLAS L. STORSETH, 

APPELLEE 
(DEFENDANT).

Petition for review from 
the District Court of Natrona County, Harry E. Leimback, J.

Donna Mae 
Storseth, pro se.

Clifford J. 
Neilson, Casper, for appellee.

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

PER 
CURIAM.

[¶1]      This case 
presents an appeal from divorce litigation results as now postured by a pro se 
brief to address contended district court abuse of discretion in child 
visitation decisions.

[¶2]      We affirm the 
district court and reject the appeal.

[¶3]      Appellant Donna 
Mae Storseth, as plaintiff, and appellee Douglas L. Storseth, as defendant, 
commenced divorce proceedings on October 26, 1987. A course of active litigative 
proceedings culminated after trial in an August 1988 decision letter and a 
decree of divorce entered September 6, 1988. Appellant and her trial law firm 
severed relations and first James David Kemo Smith and then Walter A. Murray, 
Jr. entered appearances in her behalf in post-decree involvement. A 
jurisdictionally belated pro se notice of appeal was filed, see W.R.A.P. 2.01, 
resulting in a dismissal by this court on December 1, 1988.

[¶4]      An active course 
of proceedings apparently in and out of the district court continued and motions 
from which this appeal originates were then filed, including a pro se motion to 
modify filed December 16, 1988, a motion for order suspending visitation filed 
December 21, 1988, a motion for disqualification of judge filed January 5, 1989, 
a motion for order placing funds in trust for security for payment of child 
support filed January 11, 1989, a motion to review and modify decree of divorce 
property distribution filed January 11, 1989, and a motion to dismiss motion to 
compel visitation filed January 11, 1989 which responded to the earlier motion 
filed by appellee to secure Christmas visitation as provided in the divorce 
decree.

[¶5]      On January 17, 
1989, five dispositive orders were entered by the district court separately 
denying and dismissing the request for a court order to review and modify the 
decree of divorce property distribution pursuant to a motion of January 11, 
1989; a motion to review and modify decree of divorce property distribution 
pursuant to combined motions to modify initially filed December 16, 1988; a 
motion to dismiss motion compelling visitation (dismissed for mootness); a 
motion placing funds in trust for security for payment of child support; and for 
district court judge disqualification. Additionally, an order was entered on 
January 17, 1989, directed to appellant, constituting a turnover order involving 
an electrical converter.

[¶6]      Again pro se, 
appellant, on January 25, 1989, filed a notice of appeal from those adverse 
orders, stating:

     NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 
that Donna Storseth Plaintiff above named, hereby appeals to the Supreme Court 
of the State of Wyoming from the Order denying Plaintiff[']s "MOTION TO 
DISQUALIFY JUDGE" and "PLACING FUNDS IN TRUST FOR SECURITY FOR PAYMENT OF CHILD 
SUPPORT" and "MOTION TO REVIEW and MODIFY DECREE OF DIVORCE PROPERTY 
DISTRIBUTION" and the Order Granting Defendant[']s "MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING 
PLAINTIFF TO TURN OVER PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT" ENTERED ON JANUARY 23, 
1989.

[¶7]      It is by that 
appeal from denial of the post-decree motions that this proceeding is now 
presented for our appellate review. Walter A. Murray, Jr. filed a motion to 
withdraw on February 28, 1989 and then succeeded by other counsel in the 
appellate proceeding who also withdrew by motion of November 27, 1989. The 
appellant's brief, following a motion by appellee to dismiss the appeal, was 
filed pro se on January 17, 1990 after several extensions.

[¶8]      Stated in the 
filed brief to be the issue of appeal is a challenge to the visitation 
provisions provided in the original decree of divorce entered September 6, 1988 
as subsequently addressed by a motion regarding visitation filed December 21, 
1988, which stated:

  * * * Plaintiff * * * moves the Court 
for an Order suspending visitation pending evaluation of the Parties['] minor 
children as to the effects of visitation upon them since the defendant has not 
seen them for approximately one year and the children fear him.[1]

[¶9]      Visitation is a 
matter for the exercise of discretion by the district court and nothing is 
provided by this record, including testimony in the original trial, which 
demonstrates an abuse of discretion, Rowan v. Rowan, 786 P.2d 886 (Wyo. 1990), 
either, if now open for consideration, in initial entry, Ebeling v. Ebeling, 782 P.2d 584 (Wyo. 1989), or on present request for what appears to be a 
modification of the decree by which this appeal would be technically postured. 
Connors v. Connors, 769 P.2d 336 (Wyo. 1989); Mentock v. Mentock, 638 P.2d 156 
(Wyo. 1981). Furthermore, although no argument is presented and no authority is 
cited to support appellant's contentions on other orders from which the appeal 
is taken, our independent review of the now extended record reveals no error of 
law, Sellers v. Sellers, 775 P.2d 1029 (Wyo. 1989), or improvident exercise of 
discretion, Wren v. Wren, 785 P.2d 1164 (Wyo. 1990); Overcast v. Overcast, 780 P.2d 1371 (Wyo. 1989), which would be either available for review under the 
purview of W.R.C.P. 59 and 60, Clarke v. Vandermeer, 740 P.2d 921 (Wyo. 1987); 
Paul v. Paul, 631 P.2d 1060 (Wyo. 1981), or demonstrating changed circumstances 
if the proceeding is considered to be a motion to modify, Salmeri v. Salmeri, 
554 P.2d 1244 (Wyo. 1976). Cf. Dorr v. Newman, 785 P.2d 1172 (Wyo. 
1990).

[¶10]   The district court is 
affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 We do not find where 
specific action on this motion was ever taken by the district court and the 
motion is deemed denied after sixty days by application of Rule 301, Uniform 
Rules for the District Courts of the State of Wyoming.