ANDREW GOSWICK, Appellant (Defendant), v. NICOLE D. GOSWICK, Appellee (Plaintiff).
S-20-0014
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
August 6, 2020
2020 WY 103
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2020
Appeal from the District Court of Park County
The Honorable Bobbi Dean Overfield, Judge
Representing Appellant:
Andrew Goswick, Pro se.
Representing Appellee:
No appearance.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.
[¶1] Andrew Goswick (Husband), pro se, argues the district court abused its discretion when it granted Nicole Goswick (Wife) a divorce after she defaulted on his counterclaim that he was the aggrieved party. Finding timing inaccuracies in Husband‘s argument and no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
ISSUE
[¶2] Husband raises one issue: whether the district court “err[ed] in granting [Wife‘s] complaint for divorce when [Wife] was in default as to [Husband‘s] counterclaim that he was the aggrieved party.”
[¶3] The Goswicks married in January 2005. They had one child, BJG, in 2016. They separated in July 2017, and Husband was incarcerated that October after his bond was revoked on an unrelated criminal conviction. Husband was serving a six-to-eight-year sentence throughout the divorce proceedings.
[¶4] Wife filed a pro se complaint for divorce in July 2019. Husband answered the complaint, pro se, and counterclaimed that he was the aggrieved party entitled to divorce.1 Husband applied for entry of default on his counterclaim in October 2019, after Wife failed to timely answer. He again asked the clerk of court to enter a default on November 1, after the court had granted his motion to participate, and he participated in the divorce hearing on October 31. The district court clerk entered default on November 15, 2019, the same day the court entered its decree granting Wife‘s complaint for divorce.2
[¶5] Husband timely appealed the divorce decree. Wife did not file a brief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶6] We review the court‘s divorce decree for an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Johnson, 2020 WY 18, ¶ 10, 458 P.3d 27, 32 (Wyo. 2020). “A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.” Id. (quoting Jacobson v. Kidd, 2018 WY 108, ¶ 14, 426 P.3d 813, 820 (Wyo. 2018)). We evaluate the record in support of the court‘s decision, “afford[ing] the prevailing party every favorable inference[.]” Id. (quoting Jacobson, ¶ 14, 426 P.3d at 820).
DISCUSSION
[¶7] Husband claims he was the aggrieved party entitled to divorce. A district court may grant a divorce “on the complaint of the aggrieved party on the grounds of irreconcilable differences in the marital relationship.”
[¶8] Here, the court unequivocally granted Wife a divorce from Husband. In so doing, the court implicitly found Wife to be the aggrieved party. See
[¶9] The court held a hearing to provide each party an opportunity to present argument and evidence. The record indicates Husband participated in the hearing, but either the hearing was not transcribed or Husband failed his burden by not designating the hearing transcript as part of the record on appeal. See Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 1993) (noting Mr. Combs failed “his burden to bring a sufficient record to this [C]ourt upon which a decision can be based” by not designating in the record the trial transcript upon which he based his appellate arguments). In any event, Husband
[¶10] Instead, as noted above, Husband‘s counterclaim for divorce largely aligned with the factual allegations and relief requested in Wife‘s complaint. See supra nn. 1-2. Husband does not dispute he was continuously incarcerated between October 2017 and the date of the divorce decree; nor does he appeal the court‘s property, custody, or visitation rulings. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Wife, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in determining she was the aggrieved party entitled to divorce under
[¶11] It appears the crux of Husband‘s appeal is procedural in nature—he argues that the court erred by granting Wife a divorce after she defaulted on his counterclaim that he was the aggrieved party. The most obvious flaw in this argument is that the order of events was not as husband suggests. The court signed and dated the divorce decree on November 13, 2019, two days before both the default and the divorce decree were entered. The record does not disclose why the clerk did not enter default following Husband‘s first request on October 10, or why it took fourteen days for the clerk to enter default following his second request filed the day after the divorce hearing. Nevertheless, as Husband acknowledges, entry of default is merely a “clerical act[,]” which “does not constitute a judgment.” Peak v. Peak, 2016 WY 109, ¶ 8, 383 P.3d 1084, 1088 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Spitzer v. Spitzer, 777 P.2d 587, 592 (Wyo. 1989)). Husband did not cite, and we found no authority which required the court to postpone the divorce proceedings pending the clerk‘s entry of default on Husband‘s counterclaim. And even if the clerk had entered default against Wife prior to the hearing, Husband, as the non-defaulting party, was required to “apply to the court for a default judgment,”
[¶12] Affirmed.