Rigdon v. Rigdon, 421 P.3d 1069

Bradley J. Rigdon and Ms. Rigdon were divorced by decree entered May 12, 2017; the decree required Rigdon to pay child support, reimburse a tax debt, and transfer a silver coin collection and any investment gold/silver to Ms. Rigdon.
Rigdon appealed the property distribution but later withdrew the appeal.
Ms. Rigdon moved for an order to show cause alleging Rigdon failed to pay child support, failed to reimburse the tax debt, and failed to transfer gold/silver; a contempt hearing was held August 18, 2017.
Rigdon did not appear at the contempt hearing (he was represented by counsel), filed admissions before the hearing acknowledging some nonpayment and asserting there was no gold, and later appealed the contempt ruling instead of purging.
The district court found Rigdon in contempt for failing to pay child support and the tax reimbursement and for failing to turn over investment gold/silver; it allowed a purge by payment and ordered production or a debtor’s exam related to the gold/silver.
Rigdon challenges only the contempt finding as to the gold and silver; the appellate record lacks a transcript or an approved statement of evidence, and the court assumed the district court’s factual findings were correct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ms. Rigdon’s contempt claim was barred by res judicata	Res judicata does not apply; enforcement of decree is permitted	Rigdon: res judicata should bar relitigation of matters decided at divorce trial (e.g., amount/value of gold/silver)	Not barred; contempt/enforcement action distinct from original adjudication and decree expressly authorized contempt enforcement
Whether the district court abused discretion in finding Rigdon in contempt for failing to turn over gold/silver	Ms. Rigdon: she testified she received/handled shipments and Rigdon did not comply with decree; court found her testimony credible	Rigdon: challenged evidentiary basis and contends he did not possess gold/silver (record gaps)	No abuse; appellate court affirms because record is inadequate for Rigdon and district court’s factual findings must stand

Feaster v. Feaster, 721 P.2d 1095 (Wyo. 1986) (a proposed statement of evidence is part of the record only if settled and approved by the trial court)
Burnett v. Burnett, 394 P.3d 480 (Wyo. 2017) (appellant bears responsibility to provide adequate record; absent record, appellate court assumes trial court's rulings correct)
Moore v. State, 215 P.3d 271 (Wyo. 2009) (factors for applying res judicata)
Waterbury v. Waterbury, 388 P.3d 532 (Wyo. 2017) (standard of review for contempt in domestic relations: defer to court absent serious procedural error or abuse of discretion)
Roberts v. Locke, 304 P.3d 116 (Wyo. 2013) (same standard for reviewing contempt rulings)