Lemus v. Martinez, 441 P.3d 831

Parents (unmarried) disputed custody and child support for two children; bench trial set for one day with time split equally.
Father filed a confidential financial affidavit shortly before trial listing inconsistent income figures (monthly $12,525 and $9,491; net $7,030) and attached partial tax returns for 2014–2015 that showed income only on Schedule E line items (rental/pass-through income); no W-2s, Schedule K-1s, or business income/expense documentation were produced.
Father testified he had multiple business interests (Laramie Valley Contracting, Arsenio Lemus Holdings, Opportunity Knocks), owned ~50 rental units, and described some entities as pass-throughs, but did not supply supporting records.
GAL and Mother urged the court to delay child support determination and require complete financial disclosures (including 2016 return, W-2s, K-1s, income/expense statements, depreciation detail); Mother asked the court to impute very high income to Father.
District court found Father’s affidavit and returns “totally incomplete,” nonetheless calculated child support by treating tax-return amounts as rental income, combining an unexplained $7,030 monthly wage figure with averaged net rental income to reach a $15,577 monthly net and a $2,588 presumptive monthly support obligation.
On appeal, Father challenged the income calculation and alleged due process violations from trial time limits; Mother sought appellate attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion in calculating child support income	Lemus: Court misinterpreted conflicting financial evidence and lacked basis to fix $7,030 wage and rental deductions; court should have ordered complete financial disclosures before ruling	Martinez: (Respondent) urged imputation of higher income; district court was entitled to use evidence before it	Court reversed and remanded — district court abused discretion by deciding child support without sufficient, consistent financial documentation and by not ordering the disclosures requested; Father bears burden to prove business expense deductions on remand
Whether time limits denied Father's due process/right to present and cross-examine witnesses	Lemus: Time constraints prevented meaningful testimony and cross-examination, violating due process and family association rights	Martinez: Trial scheduling was within court’s discretion; Father did not object or request more time at trial	Court treated custody time-limit claim as waived (no timely objection or offer of proof) and found any time-limit challenge moot as to support (remanded); custody claim lacked specificity so no relief granted
Whether appellee is entitled to appellate attorney fees under W.R.A.P. 10.05(b)	Martinez: Appeal lacked reasonable cause; seeks fees	Lemus: Appeal was reasonable given procedural/record problems	Court denied fees because appeal was reasonable (case reversed and remanded)

Bagley v. Bagley, 311 P.3d 141 (Wyo. 2013) (reversed an arbitrary income finding and required net income be determined per statutory definitions and documented deductions)
Verheydt v. Verheydt, 295 P.3d 1245 (Wyo. 2013) (§ 20-2-308 financial affidavit requirements are mandatory; waiver if party fails to comply or agrees to resolution without affidavit)
Long v. Long, 413 P.3d 117 (Wyo. 2018) (refusal to consider noncompliance with § 20-2-308 where party failed to provide affidavit and other evidence existed)
Egan v. Egan, 244 P.3d 1045 (Wyo. 2010) (parents’ net monthly income is starting point for presumptive child support under statute)
Houston v. Smith, 882 P.2d 240 (Wyo. 1994) (distinguishes federal tax depreciation from deductible business expense for child support calculations)
Watson v. Watson, 60 P.3d 124 (Wyo. 2002) (party seeking business expense deductions bears burden to prove they are reasonable and unreimbursed)