Appeal
from the District Court of Uinta County The Honorable Joseph
B. Bluemel, Judge
Representing Appellant: Sarah Jacobs Manwarren of Jacobs
Polidora, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: John A. Thomas of John A. Thomas Law
Office, Evanston, Wyoming.
Before
BURKE, C.J., and HILL, [*] DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
KAUTZ,
JUSTICE
[¶1]
The appellee, Satin Marie Long (Wife), filed for divorce from
the appellant, Clayton Eugene Long (Husband). Before Wife
filed for divorce, the parties executed a Stipulated Judgment
and Decree of Divorce (stipulated decree) that established
property distribution, child support, child custody and
visitation, and alimony. Wife submitted the stipulated decree
to the district court, and following a hearing, the court
determined the stipulation was enforceable and entered it as
the final decree of divorce. Husband appeals the district
court decision for various reasons. We affirm in part and
remand in part.
ISSUES
[¶2]
Husband raises five issues for our consideration:
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by
ordering that the Parties' Stipulated Judgment and Decree
of Divorce was supported by consideration, and not
unconscionable.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by
finding that the appellant did not sign the Parties'
Stipulated Judgment and Decree of Divorce while incompetent,
or while under duress, coercion, or bad faith.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by
finding the Parties' Stipulated Judgment and Decree of
Divorce was enforceable when there were no findings
supporting the appellee being awarded sole custody.
4. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by
finding the Parties' Stipulated Judgment and Decree of
Divorce was enforceable despite the lack of findings
regarding presumptive child support.
5. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by
finding the Parties' Stipulated Judgment and Decree of
Divorce was enforceable despite the lack of findings
regarding alimony.
FACTS
[¶3]
Husband and Wife married on August 17, 1993. The couple had
four children: JL was born in 1995; BL was born in 1997; KL
was born in 2006; and HL was born in 2010. Although Wife
became a licensed registered nurse in 2009, she stayed at
home to raise the children throughout most of the marriage.
Husband worked as a tool fisher, and from 2006 through 2015
his annual earnings ranged from $155, 063 to $230, 260.
Husband was laid-off and began collecting unemployment in
September 2015, after the couple had separated and filed for
divorce.
[¶4]
The couple began experiencing significant marital
difficulties in August 2014, and Husband moved out of the
home in April 2015. Husband began to see a counselor in an
effort to reconcile the marriage, and he believed that Wife
was also seeing a counselor. Wife, however, denied seeing a
counselor and told Husband that she wanted a divorce. In
response to the divorce discussions, Husband would drink more
alcohol than was normal. Husband sent Wife text messages
informing her that if she wanted a divorce, she should get a
lawyer, start the paperwork, and put whatever conditions she
wanted in the paperwork, including alimony.
[¶5]
On August 7, 2015, Wife presented Husband with the stipulated
decree prepared by her attorney. The stipulated decree
awarded Wife sole legal custody of the three minor children,
and granted Husband reasonable visitation with the children
at Wife's discretion. Husband would pay Wife $3, 025 a
month in child support and $3, 000 a month in alimony. In the
property distribution, Wife would keep the marital home, 100%
of Husband's 401(k), three vehicles, an all-terrain
vehicle, several firearms, two bank accounts held with the
children, and the Disney Vacation Club accounts. Husband
would receive the camper and the contents within it and
several firearms. Wife would assume the home mortgage debt
and the debt to Herberger's, while Husband would assume
the combined loans from Uinta Bank, the loan from Trona
Valley FCU, the balance on the Cabela's Club Visa card,
the debt to Main One Financial, Wells Fargo Financial, and
Bank of the West, the taxes and outstanding balances on the
Disney Vacation Club accounts, and all medical and dental
debts incurred before the date of the stipulated decree.
Additionally, the stipulated decree required that Husband
maintain a life insurance policy with a minimum $500, 000
death benefit with Wife named as the primary beneficiary and
the minor children as the secondary beneficiaries.
[¶6]
While there is some dispute about the conversation that took
place while the couple discussed the stipulated decree, there
is no dispute that Husband let Wife explain the content of
the document to him instead of reading it for himself.
Husband explained he believed the document was prepared by
Wife's "counselor" and that if he signed it, he
and Wife would reconcile. Wife admitted that she said she
would have dinner or lunch with Husband, but denied that she
told Husband that this was an attempt to reconcile. Husband
and Wife both signed the stipulated decree before a notary
public that same day.
[¶7]
For unknown reasons, Wife delayed filing a complaint for
divorce until September 23, 2015. Nothing in the record shows
that Husband and Wife had temporarily reconciled or otherwise
resolved their issues. Husband filed his answer and
counterclaim, and Wife responded and submitted the stipulated
decree to the district court. Because Husband's answer
and counterclaim were contrary to the stipulated decree, the
district court informed the parties it would not approve the
stipulated decree until its concerns regarding the
inconsistencies were resolved. Husband then filed an
objection to the entry of the stipulated decree. He argued it
should not be enforced because: 1) he was intoxicated at the
time he signed the document; 2) he has a history of
difficulty with reading comprehension and he did not
understand he was signing a divorce decree; 3) he was coerced
into signing the document under the belief that he and Wife
would reconcile if he signed it; 4) the property distribution
in the decree is unconscionable and inequitable; 5) the debt
...