MSC v. MCG, 442 P.3d 662

In December 2012 the district court entered an order establishing custody and child support for two children and imposed a $50/month minimum support obligation; an income withholding order was also entered. Both parties had counsel at that proceeding and no financial affidavits appear in the record.
Father (pro se) filed a W.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) motion in April 2018 titled as relief from the child support order but asked only to be relieved from the income withholding order; he argued the statutory $50 minimum (Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-304(b)) conflicted with federal law (42 U.S.C. § 667(b)(2)).
The district court did not rule within 90 days, so the motion was deemed denied; Father appealed and was charged an $85 filing/transcript fee by the district court clerk under Wyo. Stat. § 5-3-206(a)(vii).
The Attorney General argued the appeal was not proper because Father challenged the income withholding order (not the original support order) and therefore did not affect a substantial right. Mother did not participate.
The Supreme Court summarily affirmed denial of relief under Rule 60(b) for deficient briefing and record; it also held the $85 fee was properly assessed because “transcript” in the statute means the record/transmission for appeal, not only verbatim testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (State/Clerk)	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying Father's W.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) motion to be relieved from the income withholding order	The statutory $50 minimum creates an irrebuttable presumption that conflicts with 42 U.S.C. § 667(b)(2) and thus relief is warranted (move to vacate withholding/support)	Father failed to present cogent argument, authority, or an adequate record showing an irrebuttable presumption or that the withholding order itself was improper	Affirmed: summary affirmance for lack of cogent argument/authority and inadequate record; Father did not challenge the income withholding order on proper statutory grounds or provide necessary factual findings
Whether the $85 fee under Wyo. Stat. § 5-3-206(a)(vii) was improperly assessed when no trial transcript was requested	Fee applies only when a transcript of testimony is requested, so fee was improper if no testimony transcript was designated	"Transcript" in the statute and court rules encompasses the record/transmission for appeals; fee applies to all appeals' records regardless of inclusion of testimony transcript	Affirmed: $85 fee proper — statute and Court rule require fee for transcripts/records transmitted on appeal; interpreting "transcript" as limited to testimony would yield absurd results

Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85 (Wyo. 1995) (summary affirmance where appellant fails to present cogent argument)
Earlywine v. Peterson, 885 P.2d 861 (Wyo. 1994) (appellate briefing standards require cogent argument)
Wyoming Game & Fish Comm'n v. Thornock, 851 P.2d 1300 (Wyo. 1993) (same)
State ex rel. Reece v. Wyoming State Bd. of Outfitters & Prof'l Guides, 931 P.2d 958 (Wyo. 1997) (summary affirmance principle applied)
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 483 P.2d 516 (Wyo. 1971) (purpose of Rule 60(b) relief described)
McBride v. McBride, 598 P.2d 814 (Wyo. 1979) (order denying Rule 60(b) relief is appealable)
Montoya v. Navarette-Montoya, 125 P.3d 265 (Wyo. 2005) (appellant must supply sufficient record for review)
Fugle v. Sublette Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 9, 353 P.3d 732 (Wyo. 2015) (statutory interpretation begins with plain meaning)
PacifiCorp, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 401 P.3d 905 (Wyo. 2017) (interpret statutes in pari materia and give effect to every clause)