Title: Bellamy v. Bellamy

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Bellamy v. Bellamy1997 WY 143949 P.2d 875Case Number: 96-118Decided: 12/16/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

BRENDA D. BELLAMY,  

Appellant (Plaintiff/Respondent), 

 

v. 

 

JOE M. BELLAMY,  

Appellee 
(Defendant/Petitioner).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court, Sheridan County 

The 
Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

 

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

Bruce P. 
Badley of Badley & Rasmussen, P.C., Sheridan.

 Representing 
Appellee: 

Kathryn J. 
Edelman, Gillette.

 

Before 
TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN, and LEHMAN, 
JJ.

TAYLOR, Chief 
Justice. 

[¶1]      Chronically 
delinquent in payment of court-ordered child support and medical expenses, 
appellee sought and obtained dispensation from the district court to abate those 
obligations, notwithstanding his failure to comply with the statutory 
prerequisites to abatement of child support which became effective in 1993. 
Holding that the district court had no more license to disregard the 1993 
statutory mandates than did appellee, we reverse and remand with 
directions.

 

I. 
ISSUES

 

[¶2]      Appellant, Brenda 
D. Bellamy (Brenda), states a single issue:

 

Did the district court err when it failed to enforce 
and follow the mandates of W.S. § 20-6-304?

 

[¶3]      Appellee, Joe M. 
Bellamy (Joe), articulates three issues:

 

I. Did the district court act within its discretion 
in permitting child support abatement absent technical compliance with the 
requirements of Wyoming Statute Section 20-6-304(c)?

 

II. May a district court refuse to enforce child 
support when the child resides with the noncustodial parent under the parents' 
agreement that support payments would no longer be required from the 
noncustodial parent?

 

III. Did the district court properly reject Brenda 
Bellamy's accounting of child support obligations and 
payments?

 

II. 
FACTS

 

[¶4]      The parties were 
divorced on January 2, 1991 by a divorce decree which ordered Joe to pay Brenda 
$650.00 per month in child support, in addition to maintaining health insurance 
for the couple's three children and paying health expenses not covered by that 
insurance. Joe paid less than half of his initial monthly child support 
obligation, and was chronically delinquent thereafter, notwithstanding the 
reduction of those tardy obligations to three separate post-divorce decree 
judgments.

 

[¶5]      In May 1995, Joe 
petitioned the district court to modify the original divorce decree, only with 
respect to custody of the couple's remaining minor child. Not surprisingly, the 
issue of past due child support and medical expenses became an issue in the 
modification proceeding, and both parties submitted accountings of child support 
paid and child support due. Brenda's accounting, taken straight from the clerk 
of court's records, demonstrated outstanding arrearages in excess of $4,000.00. 
By stark contrast, Joe's accounting suggested he had overpaid child support and 
medical expenses by approximately $600.00.

 

[¶6]      In the years 
prior to the modification, Joe frequently endeavored to unilaterally modify his 
support obligations through sundry notes1 to the clerk of court, asserting 
that the children or some of them were living elsewhere than with Brenda. 
Although the clerk of court supplied Joe with forms explaining the proper 
post-March 5, 1993 procedure for achieving abatement of support in compliance 
with Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-304(c) (1997), none of his submissions conformed to the 
mandatory requirements of the statute. Nonetheless, the district court utilized 
the substance of the notes to absolve Joe of any further duty with respect to 
child support and medical expense obligations, thus depriving Brenda of 
arrearages, to which she remained entitled by the original divorce decree. This 
appeal timely followed.

 

III. 
STANDARDS OF REVIEW

 

[¶7]      Modifications of 
divorce decrees summon the discretion of the trial court, and decisions 
modifying custody and support provisions, inter alia, will not be disturbed on 
appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1252 
(Wyo. 1995) (quoting Rowan v. Rowan, 
786 P.2d 886, 890 (Wyo. 1990)). "Abuse of discretion is not found unless the 
district court acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the 
circumstances of the case or commits an error of law." Basolo v. Basolo, 907 P.2d 348, 353 
(Wyo. 1995) (citing Combs v. 
Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 1993)).

 

[¶8]      Unambiguous 
statutory language obliges a reading by the courts which affords every word or 
phrase its evident meaning and effect. Sue Davidson, P.C. v. Naranjo, 904 P.2d 354, 356 (Wyo. 1995). There is no judicial license to pick and choose only those 
words which promote a particular purpose, and the need to gloss a statute 
summons a correlative obligation to give meaning and effect to every portion 
thereof. Matter of ALJ, 836 P.2d 307, 
310 (Wyo. 1992) (quoting Hamlin v. 
Transcon Lines, 701 P.2d 1139, 1142 (Wyo. 1985)). Faced with a legislative 
"shall," the courts must give effect to the legislative prescription and are 
without authority to carve out exceptions to the mandate. State By and Through Dept. of Family 
Services v. Jennings, 818 P.2d 1149, 1150 (Wyo. 1991).

 

IV. 
DISCUSSION

 

[¶9]      There is no 
mystery with respect to the mechanism whereby child support obligations due and 
owing after March 5, 1993 become amenable to abatement:

 

The noncustodial parent shall file any claim for 
child support abatement with the clerk of the court within thirty (30) days 
after the period for which abatement is claimed and shall pay to the clerk the 
sum of one dollar ($1.00). * * * Claims or objections not timely filed or not 
accompanied by the requisite fee are barred. The clerk shall notify the court of 
claims and objections not barred and the court shall promptly resolve the 
differences, with or without a hearing, and enter an appropriate 
order.

 

Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-304(c). See Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 184 
(1993).

 

[¶10]   The statute spells out the 
appropriate means whereby Joe might seek abatement of his support obligations 
incurred after March 5, 1993, empowering the court to order such abatement in 
appropriate circumstances. The legislature has described the mechanics of 
abatement with clarity, and they need no reiteration here.

 

[¶11]   Joe does not contend, nor does the 
record reflect, that any of his post-March 5, 1993 missives to the clerk of the 
court complied with any of the newly enacted substantive requirements of Wyo. 
Stat. § 20-6-304(c). Although the clerk of court repeatedly notified Joe of 
those requirements, his notes did not comply with the statute's time 
requirements, nor were they accompanied by the requisite $1.00 filing fee. As 
such, they are barred. In the absence of notification from the clerk of court of 
non-barred abatement claims, the district court was without authority to excuse 
Joe's post-March 5, 1993 lapses or abate the previously ordered support 
obligations. For the district court nonetheless to order abatement was clearly 
an error of law; hence, an abuse of that court's broad but not limitless 
discretion.

 

[¶12]   The special and inviolate position 
occupied by child support obligations defies the custodial parent's capacity to 
bargain away such payments just as it requires the noncustodial parent to remain 
current in such payments upon penalty of contempt citations, carrying the 
potential for restraint of recreant obligor's liberty. Sue Davidson, P.C., 904 P.2d  at 356-58. 
Joe's partial support payments and statutorily inadequate post-March 5, 1993 
notes seeking abatement may have succeeded in avoiding an order to show cause 
why he should not be held in contempt of court for failure to make the payments 
ordered. For all intents and purposes, however, his post-March 5, 1993 notes can 
be considered nothing more than crib notes, designed to withhold from his 
children the support to which they were lawfully entitled.

 

[¶13]   The district court's order 
concerning post-March 5, 1993 child support obligations is hereby reversed. This 
matter is remanded to the district court with directions to take evidence upon 
the pre-March 5, 1993 claims of abatement made by Joe. The district court shall 
permit abatement by one-half the daily support obligation for each day Joe had 
physical custody of each child for whom support was required by the original 
divorce decree, provided Joe can prove that he had custody of said child for 
more than fourteen consecutive days. See Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-304(c) (Cum.Supp. 
1992).

 

[¶14]   For that period following March 5, 
1993, Joe's failure to comply with Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-304(c) (1997) forecloses 
the district court from granting abatement of post-March 5, 1993 child support 
obligations. Furthermore, the statutes provide no abatement for medical expense 
obligation, and Joe remains responsible for all medical expenses established by 
Brenda.

 

V. 
CONCLUSION

 

[¶15]   The absence of statutorily 
sufficient claims for abatement of post-March 5, 1993 support obligations 
necessarily requires reversal of the district court's March 25, 1996 order 
regarding child support arrearages prior to April 1, 1995. This matter is 
remanded to the district court with directions to recalculate Joe Bellamy's 
pre-March 5, 1993 support obligations pursuant to the original divorce decree. 
The district court shall also calculate medical expenses due and owing pursuant 
to the original divorce decree, and shall not permit abatement of any support 
obligations made after March 5, 1993, thereafter to enter judgment for Brenda 
Bellamy in such an amount as will fully discharge Joe Bellamy's 
obligations.

 

Footnotes

1 For example: "This is for June[']s 
Child Support. $216 of it goes towards Arrearages because two of my daughters 
(LaNora and Stacy) will be living with me for more than two wks. //signed// Joe 
Bellamy 5-31-92."