Title: Rocha v. Rocha

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Rocha v. Rocha1996 WY 127925 P.2d 231Case Number: 95-222Decided: 10/04/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
Juan 
ROCHA,

 Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

Anna M. 
ROCHA,

 Appellee (Plaintiff).

Appeal from District 
Court, Laramie County, Nicholas G. Kalokathis, J.

Bernard Q. 
Phelan, Cheyenne, for Appellant.

James W. Gusea 
of Gusea, Pattno & White, P.C., Cheyenne, for Appellee.

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

* Chief Justice at time of 
conference.

TAYLOR, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      This is a divorce 
case concerning child custody and child support brought by appellant, Juan 
Rocha. The district court awarded custody and back child support payments to 
appellee, Anna Rocha.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶3]      Appellant states 
the issues as follows:

I

Was there sufficient 
evidence demonstrating a substantial change of circumstances to justify the 
modification of an order of custody of children in a divorce decree?

II

Is the appellant entitled 
to a set-off against a property division order?

III

Did the court abuse its 
discretion by awarding attorney fees to [appellee] with[out] evidence of need or 
reasonableness and as a penalty?

[¶4]      Appellee states 
the issues as follows:

I.

Was there sufficient 
evidence demonstrating a substantial change of circumstances to justify the 
modification of an order of custody of children?

II.

Is the appellant entitled 
to a set-off against a property division order? 

III.

Did the lower court abuse 
its discretion by awarding attorney's fees from appellant to 
appellee?

II. 
FACTS

[¶5]      In January of 
1991, Juan and Anna Rocha were divorced. Anna received custody of their two 
younger sons while Juan retained custody of their eldest son. In March of 1991, 
Anna transferred custody of the two younger children to Juan. In 1993, all three 
children ran away from Juan's home in Wheatland, Wyoming and, eventually, came 
to live with Anna in Cheyenne, Wyoming. To memorialize the new arrangement, a 
stipulation and agreement was prepared and signed by Anna, but not signed nor 
approved by Juan. The stipulation and agreement was filed, and the district 
court adopted its terms and entered an order of modification on October 19, 
1993. Pursuant to that order and an order and notice requiring the withholding 
of income, Juan's employer was required to withhold $1,400.00 per month from his 
paycheck for child support.

[¶6]      In May of 1994, 
Juan filed a motion requesting the district court set aside its October 1993 
order for modification. In May 1995, the district court awarded custody of the 
children to Anna, vacated the October 1993 order for modification, and required 
that attorney's fees be paid to Anna. Child support was then set at $276.00 per 
child. Juan challenges the May 1995 order for modification in this 
appeal.

III. 
DISCUSSION

A.        STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶7]      After a divorce 
decree has been entered, the district court has continuing jurisdiction to 
modify that decree. Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-113(a) (Cum.Supp. 1996). A district 
court's decision to modify a divorce decree is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 
Cranston v. Cranston, 879 P.2d 345, 348 (Wyo. 1994). Abuse of discretion occurs 
when a court's decision exceeds the bounds of reason or constitutes an error of 
law. Id. (quoting Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 
1993)).

B.        CUSTODY 
MODIFICATION

[¶8]      Juan contends 
that legal custody should have remained with him since insufficient evidence was 
presented to establish a change in circumstances that would warrant a change in 
legal custody. We disagree. The three children in this case ran away from Juan's 
home in Wheatland in order to live with their mother in Cheyenne. All three 
children indicated a strong preference for living with Anna. Whether there has 
been a substantial change in circumstances that will justify a change in custody 
is principally a question of fact, and we accord a great deal of deference to 
the district court's decision. Yates v. Yates, 702 P.2d 1252, 1256 (Wyo. 1985). 
Further, the preference of older children is an important factor in determining 
custody. Id. Other factors that are indicative of a substantial change in 
circumstances in this case include the fact that the children stole a car, were 
involved in the juvenile justice system, and were ultimately removed from Juan's 
custody and placed in Anna's home by the juvenile court. Based on the evidence, 
we cannot say that the district court's actions exceeded the bounds of reason or 
that an error of law was committed when Anna was awarded custody of the three 
children.

C.        SET-OFF 
AGAINST PROPERTY SETTLEMENT

[¶9]      Next, Juan argues 
that since he did not sign the October 1993 stipulation and agreement, the child 
support he paid pursuant to the October 1993 order for modification, which was 
based on that stipulation and agreement, should be offset against what he owes 
on the property settlement. The district court agreed with Juan that the October 
1993 order for modification was void, but refused to offset the child support 
payments against the property settlement. Instead, in the May 1995 order for 
modification, the district court gave Juan a $1,563.71 credit for over payment 
of child support and modified the divorce decree to further the best interests 
of the children. These actions cannot be construed as an abuse of discretion. 

[¶10]   The district court retained 
jurisdiction over this matter and was authorized to enter the May 1995 order for 
modification regardless of whether Juan signed the October 1993 stipulation and 
agreement. Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-113(a). Further, offsets are not allowed in 
Wyoming. See Broyles v. Broyles, 711 P.2d 1119, 1125-26 (Wyo. 1985) (noting that 
set-offs impair the children's right to support). The district court did not 
abuse its discretion in ruling as it did in the May 1995 order for modification. 
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding that the child 
support payments could not be offset against the original property 
settlement.

D.        ATTORNEY'S 
FEES

[¶11]   Finally, Juan argues that 
attorney's fees should not have been awarded because there was no evidence that 
the fees were necessary. In a divorce case, "the court may require either party 
to pay any sum necessary to enable the other to carry on or defend the action * 
* *." Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-111 (1994). Juan argues that the statute requires proof 
of necessity. We disagree.

[¶12]   The decision to award attorney's 
fees rests within the sound discretion of the district court when such fees are 
authorized by statute. State, Dept. of Family Services, Div. of Public 
Assistance and Social Services v. DDM, 877 P.2d 259, 260 (Wyo. 1994). We hold 
that the question of necessity raised in Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-111 also rests within 
the sound discretion of the district court. Of course, the party seeking to 
recover attorney's fees bears the burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of 
the fees and must also submit an itemized billing reflecting the time and rate 
charged. Pekas v. Thompson, 903 P.2d 532, 536 (Wyo. 1995). An itemized list of 
Anna's attorney's fees was introduced at the hearing and Juan did not object to 
its introduction. Reasonableness is, of course, a component of the test 
articulated in Pekas. Here, the only evidence of reasonableness was the itemized 
list which was introduced with no objection from Juan. In the absence of an 
objection, the reasonableness of the attorney's fees will be determined by the 
district court through the exercise of its sound discretion. In making that 
decision, the district court can rely on the itemized list and the directions 
provided by Wyo. Stat. § 1-14-126(b) (Cum.Supp. 1996). The district court did 
not abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney's fees in this 
matter.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶13]   The district court's decision is 
affirmed in all respects.