### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 103

APRIL TERM, A.D. 2020

August 6, 2020

ANDREW GOSWICK,

Appellant (Defendant),

v.

NICOLE D. GOSWICK,

Appellee (Plaintiff). S

- 20

- 0014

Appeal from the District Court of Park County

The Honorable Bobbi Dean Overfield, Judge

Representing Appellant: Andrew Goswick, P ro se

.

Representing Appellee:

No appearance

.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

NOTICE: 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 that correction may be made before

final publication in the permanent volume.1 BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] Andrew Goswick (Husband)

, pro se, argues the district court abused its discretion

when it granted Nicole Goswick (Wife) a divorce after she defaulted on his counterclaim that he was the aggrieved party

. Finding timing inaccuracies in Husband’s argument and

no abuse of discretion , we affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] Husband raises one issue: whether the district court “err[ed] in granting [Wif e’s] complaint for divorce when [Wife] was in default as to [Husband’s] counterclaim that he was the aggrieved party.”

FACTS

[¶3] The Goswicks married in January 2005. The y had one child, BJG, in 201 6

. The y separated in July 2017 , and Husband was incarcerated that October aft er his bond was

revoked on an unrelated criminal conviction. Husband was serving a six

- to

- eight

- year sentence throughout the divorce proceedings.

[¶4] Wife filed a pro se complain t for divorce in July 2019. Husband answered the compla i nt

, pro se, and counterclaimed that he was the aggrieved party entitled to divorce

. 1

H usband applied for entry of default on his counterclaim in October 2019 , after Wife failed to timely answer

. He again a sked the clerk of court to ent er a default on November 1, after the court had granted his motion to participate , and he participated in the divorce hearing

on October 31

. The district court clerk entered de fault on November 15, 2019

, the same day the court entered its decree granting Wife ’s complaint for divorce. 2

[¶5] Husband timely appeal ed the divorce decree. Wife did not file a brief.

1 In his counterclaim

, Husband agreed with Wife that the marriage faced irreconcilable differences

, he was capable of paying child support under the statutory guidelines

, the court should equitably divide any mar ital

property

, neither Husband or Wife should be awarded spousal support or alimony

, and Wife could resume her previous name after entry of a divorce decree. Notwithstanding his incarceration, Husband requested

the court award joint legal and physical custody of BJG to Husband and Wife.

2 In granting Wife a divorce, and c onsistent with both parti es’ requests, the court divided the marital property between the m , distributed marital debt equally

, awarded child support in accordance with the statutory guidelines , and restored Wife’s maiden name. The court awarded no spousal support or alimony

. After considering the statutory best interest factors, Wyo. Stat. An n. § 20

- 2

- 201, the court granted Wife legal and physical custody of BJG

, but provided for telephone contact between Husband and BJG while

Husband remained incarcerated and for visitation after his release.2 STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶6] We review the court’s divorce decree for an abuse of discretion. Johnson v.

Johnson , 2020 WY 18, ¶ 10, 458 P.3d 27, 32 (Wyo. 2020). “ A court does not abuse its

discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the

circumstances. ” Id. (quoting Jacobson v. Kidd , 2018 WY 108, ¶ 14, 426 P.3d 813, 820 (Wyo. 2018 )). We evaluate the record in support of the court’s decision, “ a fford [ ing ] the prevailing party every favorable inference [

. ]” Id. (quoting Jacobson , ¶ 14, 426 P.3d at 820).

DISCUSSION

[¶7] Husband claims he was the aggrieved party entitled to divorce

. A district court may grant a divorce “on the complaint of the aggrieved party on the grounds of irreconcilable differences in the marital relationship.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 104 (LexisNexis 2019)

. While b oth spouses may s eek divorce as the “aggrieved party,” the court “ must determine to whom the divorce should be granted.” Grosskopf v. Grosskopf , 677 P.2d 814, 818 (Wyo. 1984)

. The court exercises significant discretion when mak ing this determination. Id.

[¶8] Here, t he court unequivocally granted Wife a divorce from Husband . In so doing, the court implicitly found Wife to be the aggr ieved party. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 104 (allowing the district court t o grant divorce to the aggrieved party). Where neither party requested special findings

, the court was not required to state its findings concerning which party was aggrieved, and why , and we find no abuse of discretion in its failure to do so

. See W.R.C.P. 52(a)(1); see also Kimzey v. Kimzey , 2020 WY 52, ¶ 38, 461 P.3d 1229, 1241 (Wyo. 2020)

.

[¶9] T he court held a hearing to provid e each party an opportunity to present argument
and evidence. The record indicates Husband participated in the hearing

, but either the hearing was not transcribed or Husband failed his burden by not designating th e hearing transcript as part of the record on appeal. See Combs v. Sherry

- Combs , 865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 1993) ( noting Mr. Combs failed “his burden to bring a sufficient record to this [C]ourt upon which a decision can be based” by not designating in the record the trial transcript upon which he based his appellate arguments ). In any event, Husband has failed to identify any record evidence to support his argument the court should have found him to be the aggrieved party.

[¶10] Instead, a s noted above, Husband’s counterclaim for divorce largely aligned with the factual allegations and relief requested in Wife’s complaint. See supra nn. 1

– 2. Husband does not dispute he was continuously incarcerated between October 2017 and the date of the divorce decree; nor does he appeal the court’s property, custody, or visitation rulings. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Wife

, we conclude the court did3 not abuse its discretion in determining she was the aggrieved party entitled to divorce under § 20

- 2

- 104. Johnson , ¶ 10, 458 P.3d at 32

.

[¶11] It appears the crux of Husband ’s a ppeal is proc edural in nature

— he argues that the court erred by granting Wife a divorce after she defaulted on his counterclaim that he was the aggrieved party

. The m ost obvious flaw in this argument is that the order of events was not as husband suggests

. The court signed and dated the divorce decree on November 13, 2019, two days before both the default and the divorce decree were entered. The record does not disclose why the clerk did not enter default following Husband’s first request on

October 10 , or why it took fourteen days for the clerk to enter default following his second

request filed the day after the divorce hearing. Nevertheless, as Husband a cknowledges,

e ntry of default is merely a “clerical act [,] ” which “ does not constitute a judgment

. ” Peak

v. Peak , 2016 WY 109, ¶ 8, 383 P.3d 1084, 1088 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Spitzer v. Spitzer

, 777 P.2d 587, 592 (Wyo. 1989)). Husband did not cite, and we found no authority which

r equir ed th e court to postpone the divorce proceedings pending the clerk ’s entry of default

on Husband’s counterclaim. And e ven if the clerk had entered default against Wife prior to the hearing, Husband, a s the non

- defaulting party

, was required to “ apply to the court for a default judgment, ” W.R.C.P. 55(a)(2), and “produce an evidentiary basis for the

desired relief

, ” Peak , ¶ 8, 383 P.3d at 1088 (quoting Noonan v. Noonan , 2005 WY 145, ¶ 7, 122 P.3d 964, 966 (Wyo. 2005)). H usband had the opportunity at hearing to pro vide an evidentiary basis for the court to grant him the divorce, but, as discussed above, the

record indicates he failed to do so

. The court did not abuse its discretion by granting Wife

the divorce under these circumstances. Johnson , ¶ 10, 458 P.3d at 32.

[¶12] Affirmed.