Title: JOSEPH ALAN EGAN v. KORI KAE EGAN

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JOSEPH ALAN EGAN v. KORI KAE EGAN2010 WY 164Case Number: No. S-10-0065Decided: 12/15/2010NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 

JOSEPH 
ALAN EGAN,Appellant (Defendant),v.KORI KAE EGAN,Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 
 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Park County

The 
Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Alex 
H. Sitz III of Meinecke & Sitz, LLC, Cody, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Kori 
Kae Egan, pro se.

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

 
 
KITE, 
Chief Justice.

            

[¶1]      The district 
court allowed a significant deviation from Kori Kae Egan's (Mother) child 
support obligation.  Joseph Alan 
Egan (Father) claims that the district court abused its discretion by 
considering improper factors in allowing the deviation and erred in calculating 
Mother's net income.  We conclude 
that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered a deviation 
from the presumptive child support amount and, although it erred by deducting 
certain expenses in calculating Mother's net income, the error was 
harmless.  

 
 

[¶2]      We affirm.   

ISSUES

 
 
[¶3]      Father presents 
the following issues:

 
 

1.    
Whether 
the district court abused its discretion by using improper factors to deviate 
from the presumptive amount of child support?

 
 

2.    
Whether 
the district court erred in computing Appellee's net monthly income for purposes 
of calculating child support? 

 
 
Mother 
did not file a timely brief on appeal.  
 

 
 
 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      Mother and 
Father married in 1988 and had two children, a son born in 1991 and a daughter 
born in 1993.  The parties divorced 
in 2002, and Mother was awarded primary physical custody of the children.  They agreed that Father would pay $500 
per month child support, which was an upward deviation from the presumptive 
amount provided in the child support guidelines.  Both parties remarried and had two 
additional children with their new spouses.  Mother and Father each have one child 
from their subsequent marriage with special needs.    

 
 
[¶5]      In February 2009, 
the parties stipulated to modification of the primary physical custody of their 
son after he began to reside with Father and agreed to eliminate all child 
support since each party had physical custody of one child.  In August 2009, the parties' daughter 
also moved in with Father.  The 
parties agreed to modification of custody of the daughter, but could not agree 
on child support.   

 
 
[¶6]      The district 
court held a hearing on the child support issue.  In the resulting child support order, 
the district court calculated support using Mother's net income as indicated on 
her pay check stub and imputed income to Father because he worked on a ranch and 
received substantial non-cash compensation in addition to his monthly 
salary.  Applying its income 
calculations to the child support guidelines, the district court determined that 
Mother's presumptive child support obligation would be $8171 per month.  However, the district court ruled that 
deviation from the presumptive amount was warranted and ordered Mother to pay 
$200 per month in child support.  
Father appealed.    

 
 
 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 

[¶7]      We 
review a district court's order modifying child support for abuse of discretion. 
Keck v. Jordan, 2008 WY 38, ¶ 6, 180 P.3d 889, 891 (Wyo. 2008); Gray v. Pavey, 2007 WY 84, ¶ 8, 158 P.3d 667, 
668 (Wyo. 2007).

 
 
In 
determining whether the district court has abused its discretion, we must decide 
whether it could reasonably conclude as it did. Judicial discretion is a 
composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective 
criteria; it means exercising sound judgment with regard to what is right under 
the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or 
capriciously.

 
 

Gray, 
¶ 
8, 158 P.3d  at 668.  "This same abuse of discretion standard 
applies when we are asked to review a district court's decision to deviate from 
the presumptive child support amount."  
Keck, ¶ 6, 180 P.3d  at 
891.  When a decision requires 
interpretation of a statute, our review is de novo.  Dorr v. Smith, Keller & Assoc., 2010 
WY 120, ¶ 11, 238 P.3d 549, 552 (Wyo. 2010).

            
 

 
 
DISCUSSION 

 
 
 
 

1.    
Deviation 
from Presumptive Child Support Amount

 
 
[¶8]      Father asserts 
the district court abused its discretion by considering improper factors to 
deviate from the presumptive child support amount.  The district court calculated Mother's 
child support obligation as $817 per month, but ruled that it was appropriate to 
deviate downward from that amount and ordered her to pay $200 per month.  The district court explained its ruling 
as follows:

 
 
            
The Court believes it is appropriate to deviate from that amount, 
pursuant to Wyoming Statute § 20-2-307, for several 
reasons:

 
 

1.            
Both 
parents have the responsibility for the support of other children.  Each parent has a child with special 
needs.  [Father] has the benefit of 
his wife's background and her ability to utilize that experience and 
understanding to help provide care for their minor son.  [Mother's] husband is unemployed and she 
suffers from her own debilitating condition.

 
 

2.            
It is 
clear [Mother] is attempting to advance her educational training and thus 
qualify for additional income.  It 
is equally clear that the care of her minor child [from the subsequent marriage] 
will not allow employment above and beyond what she now maintains.  It is also clear from Exhibit A that her 
current expenses exceed income, and that her proposal of $200 per month payment 
will require financial sacrifice on her behalf.  

 
 
[¶9]      Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-304 (LexisNexis 2009) sets forth the guidelines for calculating a 
presumptive child support amount, based on factors including the parents' net 
incomes, the custody order and the number of children for whom support is 
sought.  Opitz v. Opitz, 2007 WY 207, ¶ 8, 173 P.3d 405, 408 (Wyo. 2007).  "The presumptive child support established by W.S. 20-2-304 
shall be rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support to be 
awarded in any proceeding to establish or modify temporary or permanent child 
support amounts."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-307(a) (LexisNexis 2009).  
However, "[a] court may deviate from the presumptive child support . . . 
upon a specific finding that the application of the presumptive child support 
would be unjust or inappropriate in that particular case."  Section 
20-2-307(b).

 
 
In 
determining whether to deviate from the presumptive child support established by 
W.S. 20-2-304, the court shall consider the following 
factors:

            
(i) The age of the child;

            
(ii) The cost of necessary child day care;

            
(iii) Any special health care and educational needs of the 
child;

            
(iv) The responsibility of either parent for the support of other 
children, whether court ordered or otherwise;

            
(v) The value of services contributed by either 
parent;

            
. . . .

            
(vii) The cost of transportation of the child to and from 
visitation;

            
(viii) The ability of either or both parents to furnish health, dental 
and vision insurance through employment benefits;

            
(ix) The amount of time the child spends with each 
parent;

            
(x) Any other necessary expenses for the benefit of the 
child;

            
(xi) Whether either parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. In 
such case the child support shall be computed based upon the potential earning 
capacity (imputed income) of the unemployed or underemployed parent.  . . . 

            
(xii) Whether or not either parent has violated any provision of the 
divorce decree, including visitation provisions, if deemed relevant by the 
court; and

            
(xiii) Other factors deemed relevant by the court.

 
 
Id.  

 
 
[¶10]   It is clear, therefore, that although the district court must give serious consideration 
to the child support guidelines, it should not follow them blindly.  Steele v. Steele, 2005 WY 33, ¶ 
11, 108 P.3d 844, 848-49 (Wyo. 2005); Holtz v. State ex rel. Houston, 847 P.2d 972, 976 (Wyo. 1993).  We have repeatedly stated that 
"the district court has discretion to deviate from 
the presumptive amount on a case by case basis."  Keck, ¶ 10, 180 P.3d  at 892; Plymale 
v. Donnelly, 2007 WY 77, ¶ 37, 157 P.3d 933, 941 (Wyo. 2007).  The district court is expected to 
exercise its discretion in determining child support to serve the best interests 
of justice in light of all the circumstances.  Keck, ¶ 11, 180 P.3d  at 
892.

 
 
[¶11]   Father claims the district court 
abused its discretion by considering several factors that are not allowed by § 
20-2-307, including:  the special 
needs of Mother's child from her subsequent marriage; the ability of Father's 
current wife to care for their child with special needs; the parties' current 
spouses' employment situations; Mother's health condition; Mother's efforts to 
further her education; and Mother's current financial situation.    

 
 
[¶12]   The first two challenged factors 
pertained to the special needs of Mother's and Father's children from their 
current marriages and the effect those circumstances have on the parties' 
families and support obligations.  
Father claims that, while the district court may consider the special 
health care needs of the children for whom support is sought under subsection 
(b)(iii), it should not consider the special needs of children from subsequent 
relationships.  Father presented 
substantial evidence about the special needs of his own son; consequently, we 
find it perplexing that he was surprised the district court would consider that 
evidence and the evidence pertaining to the special needs of Mother's daughter 
from her subsequent marriage.    

 
 
[¶13]   In addition, subsection (b)(iv) directs the court to consider "the responsibility of 
either parent for the support of other children, whether court ordered or 
otherwise."  See also, Hasty v. Hasty, 828 P.2d 94, 98 (Wyo. 
1992) (holding the district court "erroneously concluded that it had to apply 
the guidelines strictly and could not deviate from them by considering 
appellant's support obligations to his two later-born minor children").  In weighing the responsibilities of the 
parties for their other children, the district court understandably considered 
the special needs of the children and the impact those needs had on the 
families.  The district court did 
not abuse its discretion by considering those factors.  

 
 

[¶14]   Several other factors challenged by 
Father pertain, either directly or indirectly, to Mother's ability to pay the 
presumptive child support obligation, i.e., her health situation which keeps her 
from driving and sometimes affects her ability to work, her attempts to further 
her education and therefore qualify for additional income, and Mother's summary 
of her household income and expenses which showed a monthly deficit.  Although not specifically listed as a 
factor in the statute, we have stated that the payor's ability to pay is 
properly considered in determining whether the presumptive child support is 
"unjust or inappropriate." 
 Section 20-2-307(b).  The enactment of the child support 
guidelines "has not obviated the court's need to consider those factors it 
previously considered when determining whether child support is warranted, i.e., 
the child's welfare, the paying parent's ability to pay, the recipient's 
spending habits, and all other surrounding circumstances."  Sharpe v. Sharpe, 902 P.2d 210, 215 
(Wyo. 1995) (citation omitted).  
Moreover, the statutory factors are nonexclusive; the statute 
specifically allows the court to consider "[o]ther factors deemed relevant." 
 Section 20-2-307(b)(xiii).  Thus, the district court did not abuse 
its discretion by considering the factors pertaining to Mother's ability to pay 
child support.

 
 
[¶15]   Father also argues that the 
district court should not have considered an exhibit offered by Mother which 
summarized her monthly household income and expenses and showed a deficit.  Although he objected to the exhibit at 
the hearing, he does not provide any cogent argument or authority on appeal 
indicating that admission of the exhibit was erroneous.  Pittard v. 
Great Lakes Aviation, 2007 WY 64, ¶ 44, 
156 P.3d 964, 977 (Wyo. 2007).  
He simply asserts that the summary did not support the deviation 
because Mother did not itemize the expenses that account for the deficit, 
stating "[s]he could have been spending $5,000 per month at a local spa for all 
we know."  The problem with Father's 
argument is, although he had the opportunity to question Mother about the 
exhibit at the hearing, he did not ask her to provide a specific breakdown of 
her monthly expenses.  Mother 
testified that she and her current husband had tried to change their standard of 
living and lower their monthly expenses, but their expenses still exceeded their 
income every month.  The district 
court heard the testimony and obviously believed that Mother's financial 
situation was due to factors other than extravagant spending.   

 
 
[¶16]   Father argues that some of the 
factors considered by the district court were not relevant because he was not 
arguing that Mother was voluntarily underemployed under subsection (b)(xi).  In particular, he takes issue with the 
district court's reference to Mother's health condition and her attempts to 
further her education and thereby increase her income.  We understand Father's position and 
agree there is a certain logic to it.  
Obviously, the legislature determined what amount Mother should be able 
to pay, given her salary, when it set the presumptive child support amount and 
there is a good argument that Mother should have to pay that amount.  However, the legislature also 
specifically gave the district courts discretion to deviate from the presumptive 
amount based upon any relevant factors.  
Mother claimed that she could not afford the presumptive support amount 
and, for various reasons including her health and the responsibilities 
associated with caring for her special needs child, she was not in a position to 
earn additional money at that time.  
The district court did not abuse its discretion by looking at Mother's 
total situation, including her health condition, her family's current finances 
and her practical ability to earn additional money.  

 
 
[¶17]   Finally, Father contests the 
district court's consideration of the parties' subsequent spouses' incomes.  Of course, the district court cannot 
include subsequent spouses' income in calculating the presumptive child support 
amount.  See, e.g., Houston v. Smith, 882 P.2d 240, 242-43 
(Wyo. 1994).  However, because the 
district court may properly consider the payor's ability to pay in determining 
whether deviation is appropriate, a subsequent spouse's contribution to the 
household income and support of the children from the current marriage may be 
relevant.  

 
 
[¶18]   The district court considered all 
of the surrounding circumstances in concluding that deviation was 
appropriate.  The court's 
explanation of its decision reflects that it exercised "sound judgment with regard to what is right under the 
circumstances."  Gray, ¶ 8, 158 P.3d  at 668.  It did not abuse its discretion by 
deviating from the presumptive support amount and ordering Mother to pay $200 
per month in child support.  Of 
course, if the parties' circumstances change in the future, a modification to 
require Mother to pay additional support may be 
warranted.

 
 
 
 
2.  Calculation of Net 
Income

 
 
[¶19]   Father claims the district court 
erred by subtracting certain payroll deductions from Mother's income to 
calculate her net income.  The three 
contested deductions are:  family 
health insurance ($323); Aflac disability insurance premium ($77); and Flex plan 
contribution to pay for unreimbursed medical costs, similar to a Health Savings 
Account ($100).      

 
 
[¶20]   To determine whether the deductions 
were proper, we must interpret the definition of "net income" in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 20-2-303(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2009):

 
 
            
"Net income" means income as defined in paragraph (ii) of this subsection 
less personal income taxes, social security deductions, cost of dependent health 
care coverage for all dependent children, actual payments being made under 
preexisting support orders for current support of other children, other 
court-ordered support obligations currently being paid and mandatory pension 
deductions. 

 
 
[¶21]   Statutory construction is a matter 
of law for the court.  In 
interpreting statutes, our goal is to ascertain the legislature's intent. We consider first whether the statutory language is clear 
or ambiguous.  "A statute is clear 
and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree 
on its meaning with consistency and predictability."  SLB v. JEO (In re ANO), 2006 WY 74, ¶ 8, 
136 P.3d 797, 800 (Wyo. 2006), quoting SLJ v. Dep't of Family Servs., 
2005 WY 3, ¶ 20, 104 P.3d 74, 80 (Wyo. 2005).  When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we 
give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words.  Id.  

 
 
[¶22]   Father argues that the district 
court should not have deducted Mother's health insurance costs because he was 
providing health insurance for their children.  There was a significant amount of 
testimony about dependent health insurance at the hearing.  Father and his current wife testified 
they had procured insurance for the children through the State of Montana 
Healthy Kids Insurance Plan, which was a state assisted plan that did not cost 
anything.  Father testified that he 
believed the coverage was better than the insurance Mother provided.  Mother testified that she had continued 
to cover the children through the insurance provided by her employer.  She stated that it did not cost any more 
to insure all four of her children than if she just insured her two younger 
children.    

 
 
[¶23]   The statutory definition of net 
income allows a deduction for the costs of "dependent health care coverage for 
all dependent children."  The 
statute does not differentiate between the children for whom support is sought 
and other dependent children and specifically allows the deduction for health 
care coverage for all dependent 
children.  Under the clear language 
of the statute, Mother was entitled to the deduction regardless of whether 
Father was providing health insurance for their children or not.  The district court correctly deducted 
that amount from her income.2  

 
 
[¶24]   In contrast, neither the Aflac 
disability premium nor the flex plan contribution is listed as an allowable 
deduction.  "[T]he omission of words from a statute is considered to be an 
intentional act by the legislature and we will not read words into a statute when the legislature has 
chosen not to include them."  Wyo. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Wyo. Ins. Guar. 
Ass'n, 2010 WY 21, ¶ 38, 225 P.3d 1061, 1070 (Wyo. 2010), citing Kennedy Oil v. Dep't of Revenue, 
2008 WY 154, ¶ 14, 205 P.3d 999, 1004 (Wyo. 2008).  Given the legislature was very 
precise in stating the allowable deductions and did not include disability 
insurance premiums or flex plan contributions, it was error for the district 
court to deduct those amounts in calculating Mother's net income.    

 
 
[¶25]   Removing the improper $177 in 
deductions, results in a net income of $3,732 for Mother.  Utilizing the income imputed to Father 
by the district court of $2,829, the parties' total net income was $6,561.  Applying the guidelines for two 
children, the presumptive child support amount is $1,490.  Dividing this total between the parents 
in proportion to the net income of each, we calculate Mother's child support 
obligation as $849.  The district 
court calculated Mother's support obligation as $817,3 resulting in a $32 difference 
between the proper amount and the district court's amount.  This small difference is not prejudicial 
and does not require reversal of the order.  As we have in other cases, we choose to 
ignore the small discrepancy.  See, e.g., Dowdy v. Dowdy, 864 P.2d 439, 442 (Wyo. 
1993); Shelhamer v. Shelhamer, 2006 
WY 83, ¶ 22, 138 P.3d 665, 675 (Wyo. 2006) (ignoring errors that were de minimus and harmless).  Moreover, these errors did not affect 
the ultimate decision in this case.  
The district court concluded that deviation from the presumptive amount 
was warranted, and we have already stated that the district court did not abuse 
its discretion in allowing that deviation.  

 
 
[¶26]   Affirmed.     

 
 
            

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1In order to simplify the calculations and discussion, we have rounded all 
figures to the nearest whole dollar.  

 
 

2Although there was some testimony about Mother's costs to insure only the 
children as compared to her costs to insure her entire family (including the 
adults), that aspect of the testimony is not explored on appeal by Father. 

 
 

3We are not sure how the district court arrived at this figure.  When we calculate child support using 
the district court's net income figures, we conclude Mother's support obligation 
was $822.  This minor discrepancy 
does not, however, change our analysis and we will ignore it.