Title: PATRICK TERRANCE SCHLUCK V. DIANE PATRICIA SCHLUCK
Citation: 189 P.3d 877, 2008 WY 92
Docket Number: 
State: Wyoming
Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court
Date: August 14, 2008

PATRICK TERRANCE SCHLUCK V. DIANE PATRICIA SCHLUCK Annotate this Case PATRICK TERRANCE SCHLUCK V. DIANE PATRICIA SCHLUCK 2008 WY 92 189 P.3d 877 Case Number: S-07-0286 Decided: 08/14/2008 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2008 PATRICK TERRANCE SCHLUCK, Appellant (Defendant), v. DIANE PATRICIA SCHLUCK, Appellee (Plaintiff). Appeal from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge Representing Appellant: Raymond D. Macchia and Juliana Hernandez of Macchia & Associates, Cheyenne, Wyoming Representing Appellee: Mitchell E. Osborn, Cheyenne, Wyoming Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, BURKE, JJ. GOLDEN, Justice. [¶1] Patrick Terrance Schluck (Husband) and Diane Patricia Schluck (Wife) were divorced on July 25, 1997. Pertinent to this appeal, the decree of divorce included this provision: [Husband] shall pay alimony to [Wife] in the sum of Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) per month. Said payments shall be made by direct payment from the Office of Personnel Management to any bank account designated by [Wife]. Said payments shall begin on July 15, 1997, and shall continue on or before the 15th of each and every month thereafter until [Wife] dies, re-marries, or until [Husband] dies, at which time [Husband's] alimony obligation herein shall cease entirely. This payment shall be paid directly from [Husband's] retirement annuity from the Office of Personal [sic] Management. [¶2] On April 23, 2007, Husband, citing a material change in circumstances, sought to modify or terminate the alimony obligation.1 After a trial, the district court denied Husband's request. In this appeal, Husband contends the district court abused its discretion in determining there was not a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification or termination of his alimony obligation.2 [¶3] We reject Husband's contention of error for the simple reason that Husband has failed to provide this Court with an adequate record to permit rational review of the district court's decision. Erhart v. Evans, 2001 WY 79, ¶ 18, 30 P.3d 542 , 547 (Wyo. 2001) (it is the appellant's burden to provide this Court with an adequate record). The record presented for our review consists only of the pleadings filed by the parties, the district court's decision letter and its order. Husband has not provided a transcript of the trial, nor has he submitted a statement of the evidence pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03.3 Lacking a properly authenticated transcript, or an appropriate substitute for the transcript, the reliability of the district court's decision and the competency of the evidence upon which that decision is based must be presumed. Lopez v. Lopez, 2005 WY 88, ¶ 7, 116 P.3d 1098 , 1100 (Wyo. 2005); Burt v. Burt, 2002 WY 127, ¶ 7, 53 P.3d 101 , 103 (Wyo. 2002). Given the facts as found in the Order, we find no suggestion that the district court abused its discretion.4 Affirmed. FOOT