Title: ROBERT LEE MONTOYA V. PATRICIA A. NAVARETTE MONTOYA

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ROBERT LEE MONTOYA V. PATRICIA A. NAVARETTE MONTOYA2005 WY 161125 P.3d 265Case Number: 05-65Decided: 12/21/2005
OCTOBER TERM, 
A.D. 2005

 
 
ROBERT LEE 
MONTOYA,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
PATRICIA A. NAVARETTE 
MONTOYA,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The Honorable Edward Grant, 
Judge

 
Representing Appellant:

Carol K. Watson, of Phelan Law Offices, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing Appellee:

Jakob Z. Norman, of Williams, Porter, Day & 
Neville, P.C., Casper, 
Wyoming.

                        
            

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Robert Lee 
Montoya challenges the divorce decree entered by the district court.  Mr. Montoya claims the district court 
abused its discretion in its distribution of the marital property.  We affirm and award 
sanctions.

 
 

 
 

[¶2]      Mr. Montoya failed to provide a statement of the 
issues.  We restate the issues 
presented by Mrs. Navarette-Montoya as follows:

 
 

A.                 
Whether this Court should 
refuse to consider Mr. Montoya's contentions because he failed to provide a 
statement of issues pursuant to W.R.A.P. 7.01(d).

 
 

B.                 
Whether this appeal should 
be dismissed because Mr. Montoya failed to provide a settled and approved 
statement of the evidence in violation of W.R.A.P. 3.03.

 
 

C.                
Whether the district court 
abused its discretion in its disposition of marital 
assets.

 

D.                
Whether reasonable 
attorney's fees should be assessed against Mr. Montoya pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
10.05.

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]      The parties were married in 1988.  In September 2003, Mrs. 
Navarette-Montoya filed a complaint for divorce.  After trial, the district court entered 
a divorce decree in which it ordered a distribution of the assets and debts of 
the parties and awarded primary custody of the parties' minor child to Mrs. 
Navarette-Montoya.1  The district court awarded the marital 
home, including all equity, to Mrs. Navarette-Montoya subject to the outstanding 
mortgage.2  This appeal 
followed.

            

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
We review the district court's disposition of marital 
property under an abuse of discretion standard. This Court has firmly 
established that the disposition of marital property in a divorce is within the 
district court's sound discretion. Therefore, we give considerable deference to 
the district court's findings, and we will not disturb the result absent a 
showing that the district court clearly abused its discretion. In determining 
whether the district court abused its discretion, we ask whether the district 
court reasonably could have concluded as it did. In answering that question, we 
consider only the evidence of the successful party and grant to that party every 
favorable inference that can be drawn from the record. 

 
 
Welch v. Welch, 2003 WY 168, ¶ 4, 81 P.3d 937, 938 
(Wyo. 2003) (internal citations omitted).  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶4]      Mrs. Navarette-Montoya seeks dismissal of this appeal 
because Mr. Montoya's brief fails to set forth a statement of the issues as 
required by W.R.A.P. 7.01(d).  
"Failure to comply with our rules of appellate procedure is ground[s] for 
such action as the appellate court deems appropriate, including but not limited 
to:  refusal to consider the 
offending party's contentions; assessment of costs; dismissal; and 
affirmance.'"  Basolo v. Gose, 994 P.2d 968, 969 (Wyo. 2000); W.R.A.P. 1.03.  
We have previously refused to consider the contentions of a party who has 
failed to provide a statement of the issues.  See, e.g., Cline v. Safeco Ins. 
Companies, 614 P.2d 1335, 1337 (Wyo. 1980).  In Cline, we 
explained:

 
 
It is not our job to draw up a list of issues to 
frame appellant's argument.  For 
this court to undertake this task would mean that we would run the risk of 
deciding the appeal on an issue with respect to which the appellee had not been 
notified and thus had inadequate defense opportunities.  

 
 

Id. at 1337.  
Despite Mr. Montoya's failure to provide the required statement of 
issues, it is obvious that his sole claim of error concerns the distribution of 
the marital property.  Mr. Montoya 
contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to award him one 
half of the equity in the marital home.3  Because we have determined that Mrs. 
Navarette-Montoya had adequate notice of such issue, we decline to dismiss for 
failure to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01(d).

 
 

[¶5]      Mrs. Navarette-Montoya also seeks dismissal of the 
appeal because Mr. Montoya failed to supply a suitable record for our 
review.  The record presented by Mr. 
Montoya does not contain a transcript of the divorce proceedings or a statement 
of the evidence pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03.4  It is Mr. Montoya's burden to supply 
this Court with a sufficient record so that a proper evaluation of the trial 
court's decision can be conducted.  
Beeman v. Beeman, 2005 WY 45, ¶ 10, 109 P.3d 548, 551 (Wyo. 2005).  

 
 

[¶6]      Mr. Montoya acknowledges his failure to provide an 
adequate record, but claims he should be excused from compliance with W.R.A.P. 
3.03.  He contends that because Mrs. 
Navarette-Montoya retained new counsel for the appeal, a prepared statement of 
the evidence would be "somewhat ineffective."  We find no merit in Mr. Montoya's 
contention that the appearance of new counsel for Mrs. Navarette-Montoya 
justified his failure to provide a proper statement of evidence.  Mr. Montoya made no attempt to obtain a 
statement of the evidence.  
Additionally, W.R.A.P. 3.03 allows Mr. Montoya to prepare a statement of 
the evidence "from the best available means including appellant's 
recollection."  If there is a 
dispute regarding the proposed statement of evidence, the issue will be resolved 
by the district court.  Id.  The appearance of new counsel for Mrs. 
Navarette-Montoya did not prevent Mr. Montoya from obtaining a judicially 
approved statement of evidence.  

 

[¶7]      In an effort to avoid the consequences of his failure 
to provide an evidentiary record, Mr. Montoya urges this Court to adopt "[a] 
change in the law, providing that when a judge has a hearing resulting in a 
Decree of Divorce for the parties, he must supply either a Statement of Facts or 
a Decision Letter."  Mr. Montoya 
fails to provide any pertinent legal authority or cogent argument to support 
this novel approach and, therefore, we will not consider it further.  Odegard v. Odegard, 2003 WY 67, ¶ 31, 69 P.3d 917, 926 (Wyo. 2003).5  

 
 

[¶8]      The inadequate record provided by Mr. Montoya 
severely limits our review.  Absent 
a transcript or a statement of the evidence, we must presume the district court 
had a reasonable evidentiary basis for its decision.  Burt v. Burt, 2002 WY 127, ¶ 7, 53 P.3d 101, 103 (Wyo. 2002); Welch, ¶ 12.  
We have previously recognized that "[a] just and equitable distribution 
is as likely as not to be unequal.  
We evaluate whether the trial court's property division is . . . 
equitable from the perspective of the overall distribution of marital assets and 
liabilities rather than from a narrow focus on the effects of any particular 
disposition."  Sweat v. Sweat, 2003 
WY 82, ¶ 6, 72 P.3d 276, 278 (Wyo. 2003).  
"An abuse of discretion occurs when the property disposition shocks the 
conscience of this court and appears to be so unfair and inequitable that 
reasonable people cannot abide it."  
Stoker v. Stoker, 2005 WY 39, ¶ 19, 109 P.3d 59, 64 (Wyo. 2005).  Based upon the record presented, we do 
not find an abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to award the 
equity in the marital home to Mrs. Navarette-Montoya.

 
 

[¶9]      Lastly, 
Mrs. Navarette-Montoya requests that we 
award sanctions pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05.6 Sanctions are not typically available 
when an appeal challenges a district court's discretionary ruling.  Russell v. Russell, 948 P.2d 1351, 1356 
(Wyo. 
1997).  "However, we will award 
sanctions in those rare circumstances where an appeal lacks cogent argument, 
there is an absence of pertinent legal authority to support the issues, or there 
is a failure to adequately cite to the record."  Welch, ¶ 13.  In this case, sanctions are 
appropriate.  A statement of the 
issues was omitted from the brief in violation of W.R.A.P. 7.01(d) and a 
sufficient record was not provided to allow meaningful review of Mr. Montoya's 
claim of error.  Mr. Montoya failed 
to support his claim of error with pertinent legal authority or cogent 
argument.  Accordingly, we certify 
that there was no reasonable cause for appeal.  Mrs. Navarette-Montoya's counsel shall 
submit a statement of costs and attorney's fees.  Upon review, we will enter an order 
making an appropriate award of costs and fees to Mrs. 
Navarette-Montoya.

 
 

[¶10]   Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Two children 
were born as issue of the marriage.  
One child was emancipated prior to entry of the divorce 
decree.

 
 

2Mrs. 
Navarette-Montoya also received all of her clothing, jewelry, personal papers, 
other personal property in her possession, and one vehicle.  She was ordered to assume the 
indebtedness for two credit cards, a signature loan, and the loan on the vehicle 
awarded to her.  Mr. Montoya was 
awarded all of his clothing, jewelry, personal papers, other personal property 
in his possession, two vehicles, a gun collection, tools and toolboxes.  He was ordered to assume the 
indebtedness for two credit cards and was ordered to pay child 
support.

 
 

3The parties 
valued the equity in the marital home at $86,000.

 

4W.R.A.P. 
3.03 states:

 
 
If no report 
of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a 
transcript is unavailable, appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or 
proceedings from the best available means including appellant's 
recollection.  The statement shall 
be served on appellee, who may serve objections or propose amendments within 15 
days after service.  The statement 
and any objections or proposed amendments shall be submitted to the trial court 
for settlement and approval and as settled and approved shall be included by the 
clerk of the trial court in the record on appeal.

 
 

5We 
note, however, that our current rules provide sufficient opportunity for a 
litigant to provide this Court with an adequate record.  In addition to complying with W.R.A.P. 
3.03, prior to trial Mr. Montoya could have requested a court reporter pursuant 
to U.R.D.C. 904.  Additionally, 
prior to the introduction of any evidence, Mr. Montoya could have requested the 
entry of findings of fact pursuant to W.R.C.P. 52(a).

 
 

6W.R.A.P. 
10.05 provides:  

            If the 
judgment or appealable order is affirmed in a civil case, appellee shall recover 
the cost for publication of the brief with the cost to be computed at the rate 
allowed by law for making the transcript of the evidence. If the court certifies 
there was no reasonable cause for the appeal, a reasonable amount for attorneys' 
fees and damages to the appellee shall be fixed by the appellate court and taxed 
as part of the costs in the case. The amount for attorneys' fees shall not be 
less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than five thousand dollars 
($5,000.00). The amount for damages to the appellee shall not exceed two 
thousand dollars ($2,000.00).