IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2021 WY 26___

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2020

February 11, 2021 

DAROLD M. BROWN,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

TANA J. BROWN, n/k/a TANA J. 

FINK,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-20-0181

Appeal from the District Court of Park County

The Honorable Bobbi Dean Overfield, Judge

Representing Appellant:

Christopher J. King, APEX Legal, P.C., Worland, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee:

Colin M. Simpson, Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, PC, Cody, Wyoming.

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 typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final 

publication in the permanent volume.
1

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] Darold M. Brown (Father) appeals from the district court’s order modifying his 

child support obligation to Tana J. Brown n/k/a Tana J. Fink (Mother). Father claims the 

court erred by modifying child support without requiring Mother to show a material change 

in circumstances in addition to a twenty percent change in child support as calculated under 

the statutory guidelines. We affirm. 

ISSUE

[¶2] Did the district court err by modifying Father’s child support obligation without 

requiring Mother to prove a material change in circumstances in addition to a twenty 

percent change in the support amount?

FACTS

[¶3] This divorce matter is before the Court for a second time. See Brown v. Brown, 

2016 WY 120, 385 P.3d 321 (Wyo. 2016). The parties married in 2009, and two children 

were born to their union. Id., ¶ 3, 385 P.3d at 323. On October 3, 2014, Mother, acting 

pro se, filed for divorce. Just six days later, the district court entered a stipulated divorce 

decree.1 Id. The decree incorporated the parties’ agreement to share custody of the 

children and to deviate from the statutory presumptive child support amount by foregoing 

all support. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304 (LexisNexis 2019) (presumptive child support 

guidelines). 

[¶4] On August 5, 2015, Mother, who was then represented by counsel, filed a motion 

to vacate or modify the divorce decree. Brown, ¶ 4, 385 P.3d at 323. She sought full 

custody of the children and a redistribution of some of the marital property and debts. Id. 

The record before us does not reveal how the district court ruled on the motion to vacate 

the divorce decree; it simply indicates the matter was set for trial. Prior to the trial, the 

district court sanctioned Father for discovery violations by “prohibiting [him] from 

presenting witness testimony or exhibits at trial.” Id., ¶ 8, 385 P.3d at 323. 

[¶5] After a trial in December 2015, the district court granted Mother primary physical 

custody of the children, reallocated some of the marital property and debts between the 

parties, and ordered the parties to submit updated confidential financial affidavits so proper 

child support could be calculated. Id., ¶¶ 9-10, 385 P.3d at 324. Father filed a notice of 

1 The timing of the original decree is not an issue before us. However, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-108 

(LexisNexis 2019) states “a divorce decree shall not be entered less than twenty (20) days from the date the 

complaint is filed.” 
2

appeal; we dismissed his appeal because, without a ruling on child support, the order was 

not final.2 Id., ¶ 10, 385 P.3d at 324. 

[¶6] The district court entered a stipulated child support order on May 31, 2016. Id. The 

order simply stated, “the current support which [Father] owes on a monthly basis is 

$755.00.” It did not explain how that amount was calculated or whether the amount was 

consistent with, or a deviation from, the presumptive child support amount set out in the 

statutory guidelines. Father again appealed, claiming the district court abused its discretion 

by sanctioning him for the discovery violations. Id., ¶ 2, 385 P.3d at 323. He did not raise 

any issue regarding child support. Id. We affirmed. Id., ¶ 1, 385 P.3d at 323. 

[¶7] Father commenced the current action on May 31, 2019, by filing a petition seeking 

modification of child custody, visitation, and support. He claimed there had been a material 

change in circumstances since the 2016 custody order and the best interests of the children 

required the district court to award him “sole legal and primary physical custody of the 

minor children.” Regarding child support, he alleged it had been more than six months 

since the last order and Mother had changed employment, making it “necessary to review 

the amount of income of the parties and the child support being paid.” Mother answered 

the petition and admitted Father’s allegations concerning child support. The parties 

reached an agreement on all matters at issue in Father’s petition except child support, which 

proceeded to trial.

[¶8] At the beginning of the trial on April 9, 2020, Father orally moved to dismiss his 

petition. Citing Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure (W.R.C.P.) 41, the district court denied 

Father’s motion because it was untimely and Mother had filed an answer to the petition 

and objected to dismissal.3 The court considered the parties’ confidential financial 

affidavits and other trial evidence in determining their respective net incomes. Using the 

child support guidelines, the court calculated the monthly presumptive joint support 

obligation for the parties’ two children as $1,640.25, with Father’s portion being $1,156.99. 

The court determined the difference between the 2020 presumptive child support amount

and the amount awarded in the 2016 order ($755.00) was $401.99. Given the 2020 amount 

was more than a “twenty percent (20%) increase in presumptive child support,” the court 

found “a substantial change [in circumstances] warranting further consideration by the 

[c]ourt.” The court deviated from the presumptive amount because Father was the primary 

provider for another child and ordered him to pay $900.00 per month. Father filed a timely 

notice of appeal. 

 

DISCUSSION

2

“Except in rare cases, ‘all issues in a divorce should be resolved in a single decree.’” Begley v. Begley, 

2020 WY 77, ¶ 23, 466 P.3d 276, 284 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Loran v. Loran, 2015 WY 24, ¶ 10 n.1, 343 

P.3d 400, 402 n.1 (Wyo. 2015)).

3 Rule 41(a)(1)(A) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action if the opposing party has not served a 

response to the complaint or the parties stipulate to a dismissal. 
3

[¶9] We generally review a district court’s order on child support for abuse of discretion. 

See, e.g., Stevens v. Stevens, 2014 WY 23, ¶ 8, 318 P.3d 802, 805-06 (Wyo. 2014); Bagley 

v. Bagley, 2013 WY 126, ¶ 6, 311 P.3d 141, 143 (Wyo. 2013). This case, however, presents 

a question of law, which we review de novo. Kimzey v. Kimzey, 2020 WY 52, ¶ 13, 461 

P.3d 1229, 1235 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Walker v. Walker, 2013 WY 132, ¶ 44, 331 P.3d 170, 

179 (Wyo. 2013), and Swaney v. Dep’t of Family Servs., 2011 WY 105, ¶ 3, 256 P.3d 514, 

515 (Wyo. 2011)). 

[¶10] A child support order may be modified under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-311(a)

(LexisNexis 2019), which states in relevant part:

(a) Any party . . . may petition for a review and 

adjustment of any child support order that was entered more 

than six (6) months prior to the petition . . . . The petition shall 

allege that, in applying the presumptive child support 

established by this article, the support amount will change by 

twenty percent (20%) or more per month from the amount of 

the existing order. The court shall require the parents to 

complete a verified financial statement on forms approved by 

the Wyoming supreme court, and shall apply the presumptive 

child support set out in this article in conducting the review and 

adjustment. If, upon applying the presumptive child support to 

the circumstances of the parents or child at the time of the 

review, the court finds that the support amount would change 

by twenty percent (20%) or more per month from the amount 

of the existing order, the court shall consider there to be a 

change of circumstances sufficient to justify the modification 

of the support order.

[¶11] Applying the child support guidelines, the district court found Father’s presumptive 

support obligation would change by more than twenty percent from the amount ordered in 

2016, establishing a change in circumstances to justify a modification under § 20-2-311(a). 

Father does not take issue with the district court’s calculations of the parties’ net incomes 

or application of the child support guidelines to arrive at a presumptive support amount. 

Instead, he claims the district court erred by not requiring Mother to show a material change 

in circumstances in addition to the twenty percent change in support. 

[¶12] Father relies on a line of cases adopting a heightened requirement for modification 

of a child support order which was stipulated to by the parties and deviated from the 

guidelines in existence at the time the judgment was entered. Kimzey, ¶ 18, 461 P.3d at 

1236; Sharpe v. Sharpe, 902 P.2d 210, 213-14 (Wyo. 1995); Smith v. Smith, 895 P.2d 37, 

41-42 (Wyo. 1995). Under those conditions, the petitioner must show a material change 
4

of circumstances other than, and in addition to, a twenty percent change in the amount of 

support. Id. See also, Wright v. Wright, 5 P.3d 61, 63 (Wyo. 2000) (when “the parties 

have arrived at an agreement as to child support previously, and when the support agreed 

to deviates . . . from the presumptive guidelines, the petitioner must introduce other 

evidence of a material change in circumstances, in addition to a present 20% deviation, in 

order to justify a modification”). The purposes of this rule are to encourage parties to agree 

on child support, lend integrity to stipulations, recognize the finality of judgments, and 

diminish unnecessary relitigation of matters already decided by the district court. Kimzey,

¶ 18, 461 P.3d at 1236 (citing Sharpe, 902 P.2d at 213-14). This narrow rule does not 

apply in the present case because although the 2016 child support order was stipulated to, 

there is no indication it constituted a deviation from the guidelines at the time.

[¶13] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-307(a) (LexisNexis 2019) states in relevant part: “Every 

order or decree providing for the support of a child shall set forth the presumptive child 

support amount and shall state whether the order or decree departs from that amount.” The 

2016 child support order did not comply with the requirements of this statute. It did not 

set out the parties’ net incomes, state the presumptive support under the guidelines, or 

declare the support awarded deviated from the presumptive amount. It simply stated Father 

owed $755.00 per month in support. 

[¶14] Consequently, it is impossible to conclude the 2016 order deviated from the 

presumptive support amount. To the contrary, we must conclude it did not deviate from 

the presumptive amount of support, as the district court did not make any specific findings 

required for a deviation set out in § 20-2-307(b). The heightened requirement for 

modification of a child support order is, therefore, inapplicable and Mother’s showing of a 

twenty percent change in support justified the district court’s modification of Father’s child 

support obligation under § 20-2-311(a). 

[¶15] Affirmed.