Title: WENDY WILLIS, f/k/a WENDY DAVIS v. CHAD DAVIS

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

WENDY WILLIS, f/k/a WENDY DAVIS v. CHAD DAVIS2010 WY 149Case Number: No. S-10-0066Decided: 11/18/2010NOTICE: 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

 
 

WENDY 
WILLIS, f/k/a WENDY DAVIS,Appellant (Defendant),v.CHAD 
DAVIS,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:

Matthew 
D. Winslow of Keegan & Winslow, P.C., Cody, Wyoming.

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

 
 
 
 
KITE, 
Chief Justice.            

 
 
[¶1]  Chad Davis (Father) and Wendy Willis 
f/k/a Wendy Davis (Mother) were divorced by decree awarding Father primary 
physical custody of the children and giving Mother liberal visitation.  A year later, Father filed a motion for 
an order requiring Mother to show cause why she should not be held in contempt 
for violating provisions of the decree.  
Mother responded with her own motion for an order requiring Father to 
show cause why he should not be held in contempt for decree violations.  In her motion, Mother also requested 
custody modification.  

 
 
[¶2]  After a hearing, the district court 
entered an order declining to hold either party in contempt and denying Mother's 
request for custody modification.  
Mother did not appeal from that order.  Nine days later, Mother filed a motion 
to modify custody.  Father moved to 
dismiss arguing that the motion was barred by the doctrine of res judicata 
because the district court had just heard and ruled on a request by Mother for 
custody modification.  The district 
court granted the motion to dismiss.  
Mother appeals to this Court claiming res judicata did not apply and the 
dismissal of her custody modification motion violated her right to due 
process.  We 
affirm.

 
 
 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶3]      Mother presents a 
single issue on appeal:

 
 
            
Whether the district court erred when it applied the doctrine of res 
judicata to [her] Motion to Modify Custody.

 
 
 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]  The parties were married on August 12, 
2000.  They had two children, the 
first in 2003 and the second in 2005.  
Father filed for divorce in 2007.  
The district court granted the divorce and awarded the parties joint 
legal custody of the children, Father primary physical custody and Mother 
liberal visitation.  The district 
court's decision letter, which the decree incorporated, contained several 
provisions requiring Mother and Father to cooperate, keep each other informed 
about matters involving the children and refrain from acting in ways detrimental 
to the children's relationship with the other parent.

 
 
[¶5] 
In October of 2008, six weeks shy of a year from entry of the decree, Father 
filed a motion for an order requiring Mother to show cause why she should not be 
held in contempt of court for violating certain provisions of the decree.  He alleged that in contravention of the 
decree Mother had been taking the children to a counselor without informing him 
and refused to disclose the nature of the counseling or authorize the counselor 
to discuss it with him.  He also 
alleged Mother had made derogatory comments about him in the children's presence 
and made exchanges of the children difficult.  

 
 
[¶6]  In response, Mother denied Father's 
allegations and filed her own petition for an order requiring him to show cause 
why he should not be held in contempt for his alleged acts in contravention of 
the decree, including moving the children to a different daycare and refusing to 
disclose the name or location, changing the youngest child's preschool without 
consulting her in order to prevent her and her family from spending time there 
with the child, and interfering with communication between Mother and the 
children by taping their telephone conversations.  Father denied Mother's allegations and, 
several months later, filed a supplement to his motion to show cause in which he 
alleged additional violations of the decree by Mother.  Mother filed a response in which she 
denied the new allegations and asked for modification of custody.     

 
 
[¶7]  Five months later and almost a year 
after Father filed the original contempt motion, the district court held a 
hearing during which both parties presented evidence.  Following the hearing, the district 
court issued a decision letter declining to find either party in contempt but 
requiring the parties to attend a parenting workshop and begin counseling.  The district court further found "that 
the facts before it do not support a material change of circumstances" 
warranting a change in custody.  On 
October 14, 2009, the district court entered an order consistent with its 
decision letter.  Mother did not 
appeal the district court's order.  

 
 
[¶8]  Nine days later, on October 23, 2009, 
Mother filed a motion to modify custody in which she alleged there had been a 
material change of circumstances "including but not limited to [Father] not 
properly communicating with [Mother] regarding the children, manipulation of the 
children by [Father], the actions of [Father's] live-in girlfriend unreasonably 
seeking a protection order against [Mother] to prevent her from going to the 
children's school and daycare facilities, the immoral behavior and lifestyle of 
[Father] continuing to reside unwed with another woman, and various other 
general health and welfare concerns of the children being in [Father's] 
custody."  Father filed a motion to 
dismiss Mother's motion pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), asserting that the 
district court had just decided modification was not warranted in its October 
14, 2009, order, Mother's motion did not allege any new facts warranting 
modification and the doctrine of res judicata barred her motion.     

 
 
[¶9]  Mother responded, asserting the parties 
were not on notice that the issue of custody modification would be fully 
adjudicated during the earlier contempt hearing, no evidence was presented 
concerning modification at the earlier hearing and her right to due process 
would be violated if the court dismissed her most recent motion for custody 
modification.  She further contended 
the requirements for application of res judicata were not satisfied.  After hearing arguments, the district 
court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss.  Mother timely appealed the order of 
dismissal to this Court.        

             

        

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶10]  Mother asserts the district court erred 
in dismissing her custody modification motion on the basis of res judicata.  She further claims the dismissal 
violated her right to due process.  
The question of whether res judicata bars a claim is one of law.  Wyoming Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Wyoming Ins. 
Guar. Ass'n, 2010 WY 21, ¶ 11, 225 P.3d 1061, 1064 (Wyo. 2010).  This Court reviews questions of law de novo.  Id.  The question of whether the 
constitutional right to due process has been violated is also one of law 
reviewed de novo.  Welch v. Welch, 2003 WY 168, ¶ 5, 81 P.3d 937, 938 (Wyo. 2003).  

            

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶11]  Mother contends the district court erred 
in dismissing her motion on the basis of res judicata when the four factors 
necessary for application of the doctrine were not satisfied.  The doctrine of res judicata bars 
re-litigation of previously litigated causes of action or claims.  Wyoming Med. Ctr., ¶ 15, 225 P.3d  at 
1065 (citation omitted).  Four 
factors must exist for res judicata to apply:  1) the parties must be identical; 2) the 
subject matter must be identical; 3) the issues must be identical and relate to 
the same subject matter; and 4) the capacities of the persons must be identical 
in reference to both the subject matter and the issues between them.  Id.  Mother asserts the last three factors 
were not satisfied because the only matter at issue at the contempt hearing was 
whether either party had violated the divorce decree.  She contends the existence of a material 
change of circumstances warranting modification of custody was not at issue and 
was not addressed in the contempt hearing.  
She further argues the capacities of the parties were different at the 
contempt hearing than they would be at a custody modification hearing in that, 
in the first instance, they were each trying to show the other had violated the 
decree while, in the second instance, they would have been advocating for the 
children's best interests.  

 
 
[¶12]   As a general rule the doctrine of 
res judicata applies to divorce decrees.  
Mentock v. Mentock, 638 P.2d 156, 158 (Wyo. 1981).  However, 
Wyoming law recognizes that custody modification is sometimes necessary.  Id.  Thus, a district court in this state 
that enters a custody order in a divorce proceeding has continuing subject 
matter jurisdiction to enforce or modify custody upon petition by either 
parent.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-203(a) (LexisNexis 2009); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(b) (LexisNexis 
2009).  The party seeking to modify 
custody bears the burden of establishing that a material change in circumstances 
has occurred since the entry of the previous custody determination and that the 
modification would be in the best interests of the children.  Section 20-2-204(c).  

 
 
[¶13]  In Aragon v. Aragon, 2005 WY 5, 104 P.3d 756 (Wyo. 2005), we considered a mother's claim that the father's petition for 
custody modification was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral 
estoppel.  There, the parties were 
divorced by decree entered in 2000.  
Id., ¶ 3, 104 P.3d  at 
758.  They returned to court six 
months later on Mother's motions to modify Father's child support and visitation 
and for an order holding Father in contempt.  Father responded with a motion for an 
order holding Mother in contempt.  
The district court entered an order modifying child support and 
visitation.  Id.  Several months later, Father filed a 
motion for correction of the child support computation.  Mother responded with another motion to 
have Father held in contempt.  The 
district court entered an order granting Father's motion.  Id.  A month later, Father filed a motion for 
change of custody and support which the district court granted, finding that 
Father had shown a material change in circumstances and the change in custody 
was in the best interests of the children.   

 
 
[¶14]  Addressing Mother's contention that 
Father's change of custody motion was barred by res judicata and collateral 
estoppel, we stated:

 
 
This 
court's established policy manifests a balance between the doctrine of finality 
of judgments and judicial economy supported by the doctrines of res judicata and 
collateral estoppel, on the one hand, and the applicable statutes providing for 
modification of the provisions of a divorce decree concerning child custody 
.  A court is charged with 
resolving that tension by determining if there has been a material change in 
circumstances warranting modification and that modification would be in the best 
interests of the children.  

 
 

Id., 
¶ 9, 104 P.3d  at 759.  We held that 
the doctrine of res judicata did not bar Father's custody modification motion 
under the circumstances existing in that case.  While concluding that the identity of 
the parties, the subject matter and the parties' capacities were identical 
throughout the proceedings, we concluded the issues addressed were not.  The earlier proceedings addressed child 
support and visitation.  The issue 
of custody was not expressly addressed until the last proceeding.  Id., ¶ 17, 104 P.3d  at 761.  We said:  "Critically, the issue of custody 
modification was not formally raised for the district court's consideration from 
the time of entry of the initial decree of divorce until Father filed his [most 
recent] motion."  Id.  Because modification of custody had not 
been raised or addressed before then, we agreed that res judicata did not apply. 

 
 
[¶15] 
The present case is distinguishable.  In Mother's response to Father's 
supplement to motion for order to show cause, filed five months before the 
hearing, Mother prayed for an order requiring Father to show why he should not 
be held in contempt and "for a 
modification of custody."  The 
record, therefore, is clear that Mother requested custody modification, thereby 
placing the matter at issue.  The 
record is also clear that the district court considered Mother's custody 
modification request to be at issue during the contempt proceedings.  In its decision letter after the 
hearing, under the subheading "Modification", the district court 
stated:

 
 
            
During the hearing, [Mother] argued a material change in circumstance has 
occurred thus allowing for a modification of the visitation and custody 
established in this matter in the  Decree of Divorce.  The party seeking to modify child 
custody bears the burden of establishing that a material change in circumstances 
has occurred since the entry of the previous custody determination.  If that showing is made, then the party 
must also show that modification of custody would be in the best interests of 
the children.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2009); Hayzlett 
v. Hayzlett, 2007 WY 147, ¶ 9, 167 P.3d 639, 642 (Wyo. 2007); CLH v. MMJ, 2006 WY 28, ¶8, 129 P.3d 874, 876 (Wyo. 2006) (modification is a two step process).  In determining whether a material change 
[of circumstance] has occurred, the Court must evaluate the current 
circumstances of the parties in relation to their circumstances at the time the 
prior custody order was entered.  In re TLJ, 2006 WY 28, ¶10, 129 P.3d 874, 877 (Wyo. 2006).  The Court 
does not find the facts before it to support a material change of 
circumstance.

 
 
Given 
Mother's request for custody modification and the district court's ruling on her 
request, there is no question the matter was raised and decided.  To warrant another hearing on the issue, 
Mother had to allege that a material change in circumstances occurred after the 
entry of the October 14, 2009, order.  

 
 
[¶16]  Mother's October 23, 2009, motion does 
not specifically make that allegation.  
Rather, it appears to allege a material change of circumstances since the 
entry of the divorce decree.  
Although the allegations Mother made against Father in the more recent 
motion (his girlfriend sought a protective order to keep Mother from visiting 
the children's daycare and preschool and his lifestyle was immoral) were 
different from those she presented in her earlier motions (Father changed 
daycares and preschools without consulting her and recorded her phone 
conversations with the children), there is nothing in the record indicating 
these were new allegations that arose after the district court's October 14, 
2009, ruling. 

 
 
[¶17] 
Because the record submitted to this Court does not include a hearing transcript 
or another statement of the evidence presented at the hearing, we have no way of 
knowing what allegations and evidence Mother presented against Father in support 
of her initial custody modification request.  W.R.A.P. 2.05 provides in pertinent 
part:

 
 
Concurrently 
with filing the notice of appeal, appellant must order and  make arrangements  
for the payment for a transcript of the portions of the evidence deemed 
necessary for the appeal . . . .  A 
certificate of compliance with this rule shall be endorsed upon or filed with 
the notice of appeal.  If appellant 
does not intend to order a transcript, the certificate of compliance shall 
include a statement indicating whether appellant intends to procure a statement 
of evidence pursuant to Rule 3.03 or an agreed statement pursuant to Rule 
3.08.

 
 
W.R.A.P. 
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 filed and served on appellee within 35 days of the filing of the notice of 
appeal.  Appellee may file and serve 
objections or propose amendments within 15 days after service.  The trial court shall, within 10 days, 
enter its order settling and approving the statement of evidence, which shall be 
included by the clerk of the trial court in the record on appeal.  

 
 
W.R.A.P. 
3.08 provides:

 
 
            
(a)       
In lieu of designations of the record, the parties may prepare and sign a 
statement of the case showing how the questions arose and were decided in the 
trial court, and may set forth those facts averred and proved, or sought to be 
proved, which are essential for review. 

            
(b)       
. . . . The statement shall be filed with the trial court within 45 days 
of filing the notice of appeal.  The 
trial court shall, within 15 days, enter its order adopting the statement, or 
promptly set it for hearing to resolve any disputes.  The order and statement shall be 
included by the clerk of the trial court in the record on 
appeal.

 
 
[¶18]  Mother's notice of appeal included the 
following:

 
 
CERTIFICATION 
OF ORDERING TRANSCRIPTS

 
 
            
No report of the evidence was made for the underlying Order to Show Cause 
hearing held on September 8, 2009.  
Appellant will attempt to procure an agreed upon statement pursuant to 
Rule 3.08, however if one cannot be agreed upon then counsel [will] submit a 
Statement of the Evidence pursuant to W.R.A.P 3.03.  Furthermore, the proceedings related to 
the Motion to Dismiss held on December 1, 2009, were reported and concurrently 
with the filing of this notice arrangements will be made to procure the 
transcript of that proceeding.

 
 
[¶19]  Despite the certification indicating 
that either a Rule 3.08 agreed statement or Rule 3.03 statement of evidence 
would be submitted to this Court, no such statement appears in the record.   Mother, as the appellant, had the 
burden to submit a sufficient record from which this Court could decide the 
issues presented.  Erhart v. Evans, 2001 WY 79, ¶ 18, 30 P.3d 542, 547 (Wyo. 2001).  Without 
a transcript of the hearing or other statement of evidence, this Court will 
accept the district court's finding and conclusion that the issues Mother 
presented in her October 23, 2009, motion were identical to those heard at the 
earlier hearing and decided by the October 14, 2009, order.  

 
 
[¶20]  Mother maintains the dismissal of her 
October 23, 2009, custody modification motion denied her due process because she 
did not have an adequate opportunity in the earlier hearing to present evidence 
and argument supporting her request for modification of custody.  Any contention that Mother was denied 
due process in the earlier hearing properly should have been presented to this 
Court by way of appeal from the October 14, 2009, order.  Mother did not appeal from that 
order.  

 
 
[¶21]   Affirmed.