Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kite, Chief Justice.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 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] In this divorce action, the district court granted custody of the parties' children to Candy M. Olsen (Wife), divided the parties' property, ordered their real property be sold to pay a debt to Wife's mother and granted a judgment in favor of Wife's mother for any deficiency remaining after the proceeds of the sale were applied to the debt. Carl S. Olsen (Husband), acting pro se, challenges the district court's property disposition and child custody rulings and claims the district court erred in some of its evidentiary rulings. We summarily affirm the district court's factual findings and evidentiary rulings because Husband failed to provide a sufficient record on appeal. We reverse the district court's order granting judgment for the deficiency in favor of Wife's mother because a creditor cannot participate in a divorce action.
[¶2] Husband presents several issues on appeal:
1. The court has appeared to rush to conclusions or decisions in this case based upon assumptions of which there are not sufficient facts or evidence to support.
2. Contrary to Wyoming law, the judge didn't recuse himself for bias.
3. Error of law -- the court allowed [a]n incomplete Financial Affidavit by one party, but complained of the other party's Financial Affidavit.
4. Error of law: It is contrary to law for a court to assign who will claim minor children without a waiver of release.
5. Error of law: It is contrary to the law to dismiss admissions and other documents merely because they were filed pro se.
6. Contrary to Wyoming law, the court considered improper testimony: both testimony that was not given under oath and testimony that was hearsay.
7. Any and all debts incurred by the Appellee, without the explicit consent and/or agreement of the Appellant, are her liability alone and the Appellant should not be held liable for such debts, as per Wyoming Statute.
8. The court did not adequately consider the applicable factors in deciding who should have ...