Raymond Alexander Verheydt v. Tammi Wai-Ping Verheydt
2013 WY 25
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Divorce of Tammi Wai-Ping Verheydt and Raymond Alexander Verheydt finalized Feb. 27, 2012; Husband appeals trial court’s income imputation, child-support quantities, and activity-cost allocations.
- Settlement agreement required Husband to pay $1,000 monthly child support based on imputing $5,600 to Husband and $6,400 to Wife; seven months’ back support and future activity costs were to be resolved by the court.
- Parties agreed Husband lived in the marital home during part of the divorce and had provided no financial support for children’s activities; Wife paid all activity costs post-filing.
- Parties’ settlement included waivers: Husband expressly waived hearing rights for Wife’s divorce, and the decree was drafted and approved as to form before an evidentiary hearing.
- Court conducted a final hearing based on pleadings and arguments, filling in blanks in the draft decree to resolve the remaining issues; Husband did not object.
- Court affirmed the decree, finding Husband waived due process and that statutory requirements for deviations and financial disclosures were not violated to the extent challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of evidentiary hearing and due process impact | Husband waived due process by agreeing to proceed without a hearing | Husband should not be barred from raising waivers after participation | Waiver of due process found; claims barred |
| Imputation of income and use for blue-pencil deviations | Imputed income used correctly to compute ongoing support and deviations | Imputation lacked evidentiary support and deviates improperly | Imputation and deviation upheld only to extent allowed; waiver undermines challenge on evidentiary grounds |
| Authority to order past/future activity costs as deviation | Costs constitute necessary expenses for children; deviation appropriate | No explicit statutory findings to support deviation | Decree failed to include required §20-2-307 findings; waiver resolves challenge; decree affirmed on other grounds |
| Requirement of financial affidavits or hearing under §20-2-308 | Statutory must have affidavits or hearing for child-support order | Waiver and proceedings without hearing complied with agreement | Husband waived challenge; §20-2-308 not violated due to waiver; decree affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kilts, 243 P.3d 947 (Wyo. 2010) (due process and waiver considerations in family law)
- Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. Wright, 983 P.2d 1227 (Wyo. 1999) (waiver analysis when party participates in expedited proceedings)
- JLW v. CAB, 224 P.3d 14 (Wyo. 2010) (no social study where not required; waiver principles applied)
- D.H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1972) (waiver theory; intentional relinquishment of known right)
- Jensen v. Fremont Motor Cody, Inc., 58 P.3d 322 (Wyo. 2002) (clear, unequivocal waiver required)
- Cathcart v. Meyer, 88 P.3d 1050 (Wyo. 2004) (voluntary waiver; informed consent)