Title: Stadtfeld v. Stadtfeld

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Stadtfeld v. Stadtfeld1996 WY 95920 P.2d 662Case Number: 95-282Decided: 07/01/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
Steven W. STADTFELD,

 Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

Nancy J. 
STADTFELD,

 Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Appeal from The District 
Court, Natrona County, Harry E. Leimback, J.

Donald L. 
Painter, Casper, for appellant.

Timothy W. 
Miller of Reeves & Murdock, Casper, for 
appellee.

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

GOLDEN, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      Steven W. 
Stadtfeld appeals the district court's order modifying the divorce decree 
between Steven and Nancy J. Stadtfeld. Nancy Stadtfeld was given primary care 
and custody of the parties' minor children after the court determined that 
Steven's repeated, unjustified refusal to allow Nancy to visit her children as 
required under the decree was a substantial change in 
circumstances.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]      Appellant Steven 
W. Stadtfeld (Steven) presents the following issue on 
appeal:

Whether the District 
Court abused its discretion in transferring custody of the parties' children as 
punishment for Defendant's claimed refusal to permit visitation on occasions, 
especially where there had been no prior litigation or threat of litigation 
regarding the claimed loss of visitation rights.

[¶4]      Appellee Nancy J. 
Stadtfeld (Nancy) presents two issues for this appeal:

1.         
Whether this appeal should be dismissed because appellant has failed to 
provide a settled and approved statement of the evidence.

2.         
Whether a reasonable attorneys' fee should be assessed against appellant 
under Rule 10.05, Wyo. R.App. P.

FACTS

[¶5]      On September 27, 
1991, the Seventh Judicial District Court, State of Wyoming, Natrona County, 
granted a decree of divorce to Nancy. The decree awarded custody of the couple's 
two children to Steven, subject to reasonable and liberal visitation by Nancy. 
On February 14, 1995, Nancy filed a petition for modification of the divorce 
decree pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 20-2-113(a) (1994). In the petition, Nancy 
alleged a substantial change in circumstances and asked the court to grant her 
sole custody of the parties' two minor children. Nancy also alleged that the 
requested modification was in the best interests of the 
children.

[¶6]      Nancy also filed 
a motion for temporary custody and a motion for an order to show cause on the 
same day. In those motions, Nancy alleged Steven "willfully disobeyed the Decree 
by refusing to allow plaintiff any visitation with the parties' children since 
April of 1994." On August 25, 1995, the court held an unrecorded hearing and 
made a verbal ruling from the bench. Steven filed a Combined Motion for 
Reconsideration and Objection to Order on August 29, 1995, which included a 
"fair summary of the testimony received on August 25," written by Steven's 
attorney.

[¶7]      On September 26, 
1995, the district court entered an order modifying the divorce decree. The 
court found:

1.         
Plaintiff [Nancy] is a fit and proper person to have the primary care and 
custody of the parties' minor children. . . .

2.         A 
substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the divorce 
decree in this matter in that defendant has, without justification, repeatedly 
refused to allow the visitation required under the decree.

3.         It 
would serve the best interests of the children for plaintiff to be granted the 
primary care and custody of [the children], subject to defendant's reasonable 
rights of visitation.

The court then 
granted Nancy the primary care, custody and control of the children, subject to 
Steven's right of reasonable visitation.

[¶8]      Steven filed a 
notice of appeal on October 24, 1995. On December 21, 1995, Steven filed an 
affidavit with the district court, which contained a "fair summary of the 
testimony received on August 25, 1995." Nancy filed an objection to Steven's 
statement of the evidence, pursuant to WYO. R.APP. P. 3.03, and submitted her 
own statement of the evidence with a supporting affidavit.

DISCUSSION

[¶9]      Wyoming Rules of 
Appellate Procedure 3.03 provides:

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.

[¶10]   Steven is the appellant in this 
case. Neither he, nor his attorney, submitted statements to the trial court for 
settlement and approval, nor have they provided this Court with a settled and 
approved statement of the evidence. It is the appellant's burden to bring to us 
a complete record on which to base a decision. Wood v. Wood, 865 P.2d 616, 617 
(Wyo. 1993); Schweer v. Manning, 646 P.2d 175, 176 (Wyo. 1982). No transcript 
was taken in this case and Steven has failed to comply with WYO. R.APP. P. 
3.03.

Granted, failure to 
provide a transcript of evidence does not necessarily require a dismissal of an 
appeal. However, we are restricted in review to those allegations of error not 
requiring an inspection of the transcript.

"Where there is no 
transcript before the court on appeal, the regularity of the trial court's 
judgment and the competency of the evidence upon which that judgment is based 
must be presumed. [Citations.] We are therefore limited in our review to those 
items of error which do not necessitate consideration of the transcript. 
[Citations.]"

Schweer, 646 P.2d  at 176 (quoting Oman v. Morris, 28 Colo. App. 124, 471 P.2d 430, 432 
(1970).

[¶11]   Steven argues only that the 
district court abused its discretion in finding a substantial change in 
circumstances and transferring custody of the children to Nancy. In order to 
resolve such a claim, we must examine the evidence to determine whether the 
trial court could reasonably conclude as it did. Ready v. Ready, 906 P.2d 382, 
384-85 (Wyo. 1995). Without a record of the proceedings, the Court must "assume 
that the district court heard evidence from which it could find a change" in 
circumstances. Feaster v. Feaster, 721 P.2d 1095, 1096 (Wyo. 1986). "Without 
either a transcript or an approved statement of the hearing we cannot assume 
that the court's findings were unsupported. We cannot find an abuse of 
discretion." Id. at 1097.

[¶12]   Without a proper factual record, 
this Court cannot certify a reasonable cause for an appeal claiming an abuse of 
discretion. Nicholls v. Nicholls, 721 P.2d 1103, 1106 (Wyo. 1986). Nancy shall 
submit a statement of costs and attorney's fees to this Court, and, upon review, 
an appropriate award of costs, fees and penalty will be ordered by this Court. 
WYO. R.APP. P. 10.05; Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85, 88 (Wyo. 1995); Phifer 
v. Phifer, 845 P.2d 384, 387 (Wyo. 1993).

CONCLUSION

[¶13]   This Court will not review an 
alleged abuse of discretion without a proper record. Failure to provide a proper 
record in such an appeal results in an award of costs, attorney's fees and 
penalty pursuant to WYO. R.APP. P. 10.05.