Carline Adelle Lew v. Frank W. Lew, 449 P.3d 683

Divorce decree (2007) required $50,000 college accounts for each of two children; Father deposited $100,000 and each parent served as trustee for one child’s account (Father managed SL’s; Mother managed JL’s).
Mother withdrew funds from JL’s account until its balance was zero by June 30, 2010.
District court issued a June 2011 order requiring Mother to reimburse the education accounts; Mother did not appeal and did not reimburse.
Father filed a show-cause motion in February 2017; without an evidentiary hearing the court found Mother in contempt and entered a December 2017 judgment ordering her to pay $50,000 plus interest, calculating a total of $132,138.74 by applying 10% interest from September 2007 and treating the judgment as child-support enforcement under Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-310(c).
Mother appealed, arguing (1) the damages award lacked evidentiary support, (2) the 10% post-judgment interest from 2007 was legally erroneous, and (3) Father is not the real party in interest.
Supreme Court affirmed the $50,000 reimbursement award, held Mother waived the real-party-in-interest objection, and reversed/remanded the interest award for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in finding $50,000 damages without an evidentiary hearing	Mother: court abused discretion by awarding damages without proof at a hearing	Father: record (Rule 3.03 statements and concessions) showed Mother received $50,000 and emptied the account	Affirmed — award of $50,000 sustained based on concessions and record; not clearly erroneous
Whether the court erred by awarding 10% post-judgment interest from Sept. 2007 under child-support enforcement statute	Mother: reimbursement is not child support; §20-2-310(c) inapplicable, so interest from 2007 is improper	Father: judgment should be effective from Sept. 2007 and entitled to 10% interest	Reversed in part — court erred treating the judgment as child-support enforcement under §20-2-310(c); remanded to determine appropriate pre/post-judgment interest with an adequate record
Whether Father is the real party in interest	Mother: JL (the child) is the real party in interest	Father: (implicit) action by Father to enforce decree was proper; issue not timely raised	Held waived — Mother failed to raise the real-party-in-interest objection timely, so it is forfeited

Greer v. Greer, 391 P.3d 1127 (Wyo. 2017) (elements of civil contempt and burden shift)
Meckem v. Carter, 323 P.3d 637 (Wyo. 2014) (compensatory contempt must be based on evidence of actual loss)
Walters v. Walters, 249 P.3d 214 (Wyo. 2011) (reversing speculative contempt damages where award lacked evidentiary basis)
KM Upstream, LLC v. Elkhorn Constr., Inc., 278 P.3d 711 (Wyo. 2012) (standards for awarding prejudgment interest: liquidated claim and notice of amount due)
Thorkildsen v. Belden, 269 P.3d 421 (Wyo. 2012) (prejudgment interest appropriate when claim is readily computable)
Air Methods/Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers’ Comp. Div., 432 P.3d 476 (Wyo. 2018) (post-judgment interest available for judgments)
Mills v. Mills, 827 S.E.2d 391 (Va. Ct. App. 2019) (upholding compensatory contempt award supported by record)
Doyle v. Doyle, 815 P.2d 366 (Alaska 1991) (reversing contempt damages lacking correlation to actual harm)