Title: LYNDA E. PAYNE V. RANDY L. PAYNE

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

LYNDA E. PAYNE V. RANDY L. PAYNE2006 WY 50132 P.3d 195Case Number: 05-181Decided: 04/20/2006
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
LYNDA E. 
PAYNE,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
RANDY L. 
PAYNE,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from theDistrictCourtofAlbanyCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Carol 
Serelson, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bert T. 
Ahlstrom, Jr., Cheyenne, 
Wyoming

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, BURKE, JJ.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Lynda Payne 
(Mother) and Randy Payne (Father) were married in 1981.  The marital union produced two children, 
both of whom were minors when the parties divorced in March of 1998.  The divorce decree awarded Mother 
primary custody of the minor children.  
Father was ordered to pay, among other things, one-half of any uninsured 
medical, dental and eye care expenses incurred by the children.  Mother, claiming that Father had fallen 
in arrears in medical reimbursement, petitioned the court to order Father to 
pay.  

 
 
[¶2]      After a full 
hearing, the district court denied Mother's petition.  The district court found that Mother had 
waived her claim to reimbursement by not submitting the medical bills to Father 
in a timely manner.  The district 
court also found that Mother failed to present sufficient evidence during the 
hearing to support the amount she claimed was due from Father.  On appeal, Mother does not challenge the 
district court's finding that she did not meet her burden of proof.  Rather, she takes issue only with the 
district court's determination that she waived her claim for reimbursement.  The district court's unchallenged 
finding that Mother failed in her burden of proof, constituting an independent 
basis for denial of Mother's claim, renders Mother's appellate issue moot.  In other words, because the denial of 
Mother's claim is supported on other grounds, reversal of the district court's 
waiver ruling would have no effect on the outcome of this appeal.  The order of the district court is 
summarily affirmed.1

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Even had 
Mother appealed the district court's sufficiency of the evidence ruling, she 
failed to provide this Court with an adequate record to permit rational 
review.  Erhart v. Evans, 2001 WY 79, ¶ 18, 30 P.3d 542, 547 (Wyo. 2001) (it is the appellant's burden to provide this Court 
with an adequate record).  Without 
an adequate record, this Court presumes that the trial court's findings are 
supported by sufficient evidence.  
Smith v. Smith, 2003 WY 87, ¶ 
11, 72 P.3d 1158, 1161 (Wyo. 2003).