Casey Charles Peak v. Amanda Ann Peak
2016 WY 109
Wyo.2016Background
- Amanda Peak filed for divorce in June 2015; Casey Peak was served June 3, 2015 and failed to timely answer. Clerk entered default June 24, 2015.
- A default hearing on a proposed default divorce decree was scheduled for September 17, 2015; Father and his counsel did not appear. The court heard Mother's evidence and entered a default divorce decree September 29, 2015.
- Decree awarded Mother primary custody, the marital home, and certain mortgage payment relief; awarded Father business interests, vehicles, and other assets; assigned various debts to each party; ordered Father to pay child support and arrearage.
- Father moved to set aside the default and the decree, claiming lack of notice of the hearing and other procedural and substantive errors; the district court denied the motion (order entered August 29, 2016) and Father did not appeal that denial.
- This appeal challenges (1) whether the court violated Father's due process by holding the default hearing in his absence, and (2) whether the court abused its discretion in property division and child support calculations given the default posture and available financial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did holding the default hearing in Father's absence violate due process? | Father received notice; he waived right by failing to appear. | Court lacked proper notice to Father; absence denied meaningful opportunity to be heard. | Court: Father received notice; absence = waiver; no due process violation. |
| Should court have used alternative sanctions instead of entering default decree when Father didn't appear? | Default decree was permissible where rules provide for default procedures. | Court should have imposed other sanctions rather than enter full default decree. | Court: Father offered no authority; Rules provide no mandatory alternative sanctions; argument rejected. |
| Did decree exceed relief requested (mortgage payments obligation) contrary to W.R.C.P. 54(c)? | Division of property and debts were within the general relief requested in complaint. | Award of 12 months mortgage payments exceeded pleadings/relief requested. | Court: Complaint sought equitable property/debt division; award did not exceed relief; W.R.C.P. 54(c) satisfied. |
| Was property division/child support an abuse of discretion given default and absence of Father's financial affidavit? | Division and support based on evidence before court were equitable; Mother filed financial affidavit; other financial records were introduced. | Division was inequitable; child support used Father's income without his financial affidavit or paternity proof for oldest child. | Court: Distribution not so unfair as to "shock the conscience"; sufficient financial evidence existed (paystubs, tax returns, business records); paternity/allegations were admitted by default. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Jones, 903 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1995) (due process gives opportunity to be heard; voluntary absence can constitute waiver)
- Spitzer v. Spitzer, 777 P.2d 587 (Wyo. 1989) (distinguishes entry of default from default judgment; requires evidentiary basis for unliquidated relief)
- Noonan v. Noonan, 122 P.3d 964 (Wyo. 2005) (in default divorces court must obtain sufficient financial evidence to support property, custody, and child support findings)
- Zweifel v. State ex rel. Brimmer, 517 P.2d 493 (Wyo. 1974) (W.R.C.P. 54(c) prevents a default judgment from awarding relief different in kind or greater in amount than demanded)
- Brush v. Davis, 315 P.3d 648 (Wyo. 2013) (statutory pleading requirements are mandatory but not jurisdictional; court may proceed despite certain statutory omissions)
- Clay v. Mountain Valley Mineral Ltd. P’ship, 351 P.3d 961 (Wyo. 2015) (entry of default operates as admission of facts alleged in complaint; defaulting party may not contest those facts on appeal)