LISA M. BARRETT-OLIVER, f/k/a LISA M. QUAST, Appellant (Plaintiff),
MICHAEL G. QUAST, Appellee (Defendant).
Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge
Representing Appellant: Dameione S. Cameron of Cameron Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Laura J. Jackson of Jackson Law Firm, L.L.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.
[¶1] Michael G. Quast, the appellee, petitioned the district court for modification of his child support payments. At the hearing related to that petition, the appellee and Lisa M. Quast, the appellant, agreed that certain provisions related to the division of their children's college tuition and extracurricular expenses contained in their property settlement and divorce agreement were in need of clarification. The district court modified the amount of child support owed by the appellee. Additionally, the district court determined that the appellant was voluntarily unemployed and imputed income to her for purposes of calculating the amount of income to attribute to each parent. The district court also added limitations to the college and extracurricular expense provisions. The appellant now appeals those decisions. We affirm.
[¶2] 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by imputing income to the appellant?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying the terms of the Property Settlement and Child Custody Agreement?
[¶3] The parties were married on June 25, 1988. Before their divorce, they had five children. On October 8, 2004, a Property Settlement and Child Custody Agreement was filed. The parties agreed to joint legal custody of the children, with the mother receiving primary physical custody.
[¶4] On September 1, 2009, the appellee filed a Petition for Modification of Child Support. He argued that his child support payments should be reevaluated because the oldest child had reached the age of majority. The appellant filed her counterclaim on October 15, 2009. In it, she alleged that the appellee inconsistently complied with the terms of the agreement and requested the district court to order the appellee to share in the costs of the children's extracurricular activities, and that the parties share the children's medical expenses proportionate to the parties' income. There was a hearing on the matter before the district court on September 20, 2011. A court reporter was not present for the hearing, and no record of the hearing was preserved for appeal.
[¶5] Based on the district court's decision letter, it appears the parties agreed that the presumptive child support should be recalculated based on the eldest child attaining the age of majority. They did, however, disagree regarding the appropriate income to be attributed to each party. Additionally, at the hearing, both parties expressed ...