Title: LYNDA E. PAYNE V. RANDY L. PAYNE
Citation: 132 P.3d 195, 2006 WY 50
Docket Number: 
State: Wyoming
Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court
Date: April 20, 2006

LYNDA E. PAYNE V. RANDY L. PAYNE Annotate this Case LYNDA E. PAYNE V. RANDY L. PAYNE 2006 WY 50 132 P.3d 195 Case Number: 05-181 Decided: 04/20/2006 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2006 LYNDA E. PAYNE, Appellant (Defendant), v. RANDY L. PAYNE, Appellee (Plaintiff). Appeal from theDistrictCourtofAlbanyCounty Representing Appellant: Carol Serelson, Cheyenne, Wyoming Representing Appellee: Bert T. Ahlstrom, Jr., Cheyenne, Wyoming Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, BURKE, JJ. GOLDEN, Justice. [¶1] Lynda Payne (Mother) and Randy Payne (Father) were married in 1981. The marital union produced two children, both of whom were minors when the parties divorced in March of 1998. The divorce decree awarded Mother primary custody of the minor children. Father was ordered to pay, among other things, one-half of any uninsured medical, dental and eye care expenses incurred by the children. Mother, claiming that Father had fallen in arrears in medical reimbursement, petitioned the court to order Father to pay. [¶2] After a full hearing, the district court denied Mother's petition. The district court found that Mother had waived her claim to reimbursement by not submitting the medical bills to Father in a timely manner. The district court also found that Mother failed to present sufficient evidence during the hearing to support the amount she claimed was due from Father. On appeal, Mother does not challenge the district court's finding that she did not meet her burden of proof. Rather, she takes issue only with the district court's determination that she waived her claim for reimbursement. The district court's unchallenged finding that Mother failed in her burden of proof, constituting an independent basis for denial of Mother's claim, renders Mother's appellate issue moot. In other words, because the denial of Mother's claim is supported on other grounds, reversal of the district court's waiver ruling would have no effect on the outcome of this appeal. The order of the district court is summarily affirmed.1 FOOT