Kimberly D. Rambo v. Jeffrey D. Rambo
2017 WY 32
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Kimberly Rambo (Mother) and Jeffrey Rambo (Father) divorced in Wyoming; Father was ordered to pay $600/month child support (later reduced) and other obligations.
- Mother moved to hold Father in contempt in 2015 for unpaid child support and other obligations; Father admitted delinquency and sought a modification.
- District court found Father in contempt, entered judgment on several non-child-support debts, and found child support arrears of $15,600 (through June 2015) plus additional post-July 2015 arrears.
- Court fashioned a purge plan: Father must pay at least $50/month toward arrears (or $300/month after the younger child graduates) and, while he complied with the plan, the court ordered no interest would accrue because the arrears had not been "reduced to judgment."
- Court stated Mother could file a motion to enter judgment if a payment was missed, and then statutory interest (10%) and attorney fees would apply upon entry of judgment.
- Mother appealed, arguing the arrears became a judgment by operation of law under Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-310(c), that she was entitled to 10% penalty under § 1-16-103(b), and that the district court improperly restricted her enforcement rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delinquent child support became a judgment by operation of law under Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-310(c) | Mother: Arrears become a judgment automatically on the date due under § 20-2-310(c). | Father/District Court: Treated arrears as not reduced to judgment while purge plan in effect and conditioned entry of judgment on motion. | Held: Arrears became a judgment by operation of law when due; court erred to treat otherwise. |
| Whether district court could restrict Mother's ability to enforce/execute on that judgment | Mother: Court lacked authority to prevent enforcement of the judgment created by operation of law. | District Court: Limited enforcement while purge payments timely; required motion to enter judgment before enforcement. | Held: Court could not impede Mother's right to execute on the automatically-created judgment; that limitation was erroneous. |
| Whether Mother is entitled to a 10% late-payment penalty under Wyo. Stat. § 1-16-103(b) | Mother: Entitled to 10% penalty on unpaid judgments by operation of law. | Respondent: Court implied penalty would apply only after entry of judgment as directed. | Held: Mother is not entitled to § 1-16-103(b) penalty here because that statute applies only to judgments by operation of law arising pursuant to W.S. 14-2-204, which this proceeding did not invoke. |
| Whether arrears are exempt from interest under Wyo. Stat. § 1-16-102(c) | Mother: Court ordered no interest while arrears "not reduced to judgment." | District Court: No interest so long as purge payments timely. | Held: § 1-16-102(c) exemption does not apply because it references judgments under W.S. 14-2-204; arrears here bear interest at 10% per year under § 1-16-102(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Yager v. State, 362 P.3d 777 (Wyo. 2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; focus on legislature's plain intent)
- N. Fork Land & Cattle, LLLP v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 362 P.3d 341 (Wyo. 2015) ("operation of law" denotes an automatic legal outcome)
- Spreeman v. State, 278 P.3d 1159 (Wyo. 2012) (principles of statutory construction regarding plain and ordinary meaning)