from the District Court of Sweetwater County The Honorable
Nena James, Judge
Representing Appellant: Michael Stulken, Stulken Law, PC,
Representing Appellee: Elizabeth Greenwood and Inga L.
Parsons, of Counsel, Greenwood Law, LLC, Pinedale, Wyoming.
DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
In accordance with the Lews' 2007 divorce decree, Frank
W. Lew (Father) agreed to establish college accounts in the
amount of $50, 000 for each of the parties' two children.
Carline Adelle Lew (Mother) managed one account and Father
managed the other. Mother brings this appeal to challenge an
order requiring her to reimburse funds she removed from the
account she managed. She argues that the district court
abused its discretion in awarding damages in the amount of
$50, 000 without receiving evidence on the matter, and it
erred in awarding post-judgment interest beginning in
September 2007. She also argues Father is not a real party in
interest. We conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it ordered Mother to reimburse the
account, and Mother waived the argument regarding the real
party in interest. We reverse and remand on the award of
We rephrase the issues:
1. Did the district court err when it found damages in the
amount of $50, 000 without receiving evidence on the matter?
2. Did the district court err as a matter of law when it
awarded 10% post-judgment interest from September 2007?
3. Is Father the real party in interest?
The parties divorced in 2007. Pursuant to their stipulated
divorce decree, Father was to contribute $50, 000 for college
accounts for each of the parties' two children. The
accounts were established in September 2007. The parties
agreed that each parent would be the trustee of one account.
Father was to manage SL's $50, 000 account and Mother to
manage JL's $50, 000 account.
Mother began withdrawing funds from JL's account leaving
a zero balance as of June 30, 2010. The district court issued
two orders addressing this problem-one in June 2011 and the
other in December 2017. In June 2011, the district court
entered a temporary order requiring Mother to reimburse the
"education accounts to the level they should have been
prior to any withdrawals . . . and in accordance with the
amounts reflected in the similar accounts maintained by"
Father. Mother did not appeal the order, and she did not
reimburse any funds to JL's account.
In February 2017, Father filed a motion for order to show
cause why Mother should not be held in contempt for failure
to comply with the 2011 order. The district court did not
hold an evidentiary hearing. Instead, the court ordered the
parties to submit briefs on the "issue of judgment
interest with regard to the monies owed" by Mother. In
December 2017, the district court entered its second order on
the issue, a "Judgment on Order to Show Cause." The
court found Mother in contempt and required her to reimburse
JL's account by paying Father $132, 138.74 ($50, 000 plus
10% interest calculated from September 2007). The court then
ordered Father to "retain reimbursement for those
amounts he has expended on J.L.'s education" and put
any "remaining amounts" into an "education
trust fund to be administered solely" by Father. The
court qualified its decision:
4. The total judgment amount is entered to enforce the Decree
of Divorce and constitutes judgment pursuant to W.S. §