*1 39-6-507(b). used As Wyo.Stat. due.13 § again refers 507(b), term “vendor”

in § property transfers person who

to a (6th Dictionary 1555 Black’s Law sale.14 inconsistent with 1990). It

ed. would de purpose and object and

the statute’s provisions of other

stroy operation Thom provision otherwise.

construe Flow Com In-Stream Wyoming

son De (Wyo.1982);

mittee, P.2d

herrera, at 482.

CONCLUSION court is af- decision of

firmed. PHIFER, Appellant

(Defendant), PHIFER, Appellee

Kathryn A.

(Plaintiff). 92-86.

No.

Supreme Court 8, 1993. previous noting version that in 14. It is worth recognize of en- the inherent difficulties Act, provision. which stated Howev- Tax the section embodied in this of the Use forcement er, this case was assessed direct- applicable tax at issue in relevant terms definitions for Department words, following review the phrases a routine terms ed: “The * * * designed, apparently, to detect Audit which meanings have the in this act when used by corporate and business enti- unpaid use taxes section, except where to them in this ascribed means, such as the vehic- collection ties. Other clearly different mean- indicates a the context Wyo.Stat. 39-6- registration provisions § le 506, Wyo.Stat. ing.” § 39-310. average tax help citizens the use insure taking place major out-of-state. purchases on *2 by

ISSUE III: Did the court err order- ing pay [husband] [wife’s] attorney’s fees? phrases the issues:

The wife proper- I. Whether the District Court ly Angela ruled that Phifer is not emanci- pated. prop-

II. Whether the District Court erly monthly reduce the child declined to obligation. prop- III. the District Whether Court erly allowed the evi- [wife] at the as to the second attorney reasonableness of fees incurred bringing contempt proceeding in against for failure to the [husband] child and medical benefits. can

IV. Whether cause for that there was no reasonable and there should be taxed as part of costs a reason- appel- Pretty, Cheyenne, for [husband’s] Ronald G. fee to for be [wife] lant. damages and costs incurred. L. Nelson of Robert L. Nelson & Robert parties were divorced a decree Associates, appellee. Cheyenne, for 13, Custody entered on placed parties’ two children was with C.J., THOMAS, MACY, Before provided that the wife. The decree GOLDEN, JJ. URBIGKIT and support pay- child would make ments until “the minor children reach MACY, Chief Justice. age majority, marry, or become other- is must decide whether evidence In emancipated.” wise support the district present in the record to in the amount of the sought an increase that a child was not determination court’s support payments. After considera- child husband, to relieve the emancipated so as wrangling, parties reached Phifer, obligation to of the reduced to an order agreement, which was support payments, whether the make child to increase entered on June in district court abused a month $225 amount of the child reducing the per a month child. per child to $275 the district court payments, and whether stopped making the the husband pay a requiring the husband to erred altogether, and the support payments wife, fees for the of the finding contempt. sought a We must also address Kathryn A. Phifer. sought judgment past-due for penalty under and a a claim for support, of an income issuance 10.05. W.R.A.P. order, for her and an award affirm. initially heard A commissioner fees. these issues: The husband states matter, his recom- and he forwarded by ruling I: Did the court err ISSUE court on Novem- mendations to the district emancipated? Angela Phifer was rec- The court commissioner ber district court enter err ommended II: Did the court ISSUE for against the husband monthly judgment reducing the [husband’s] $4,600 obligation? was, best, though equivocal support in the amount with past-due medical for testimony gard question to this in his own be held hearing. at the penalty imposed; contempt but that $400 that the wife have It is evident from the record fees; and that an income with- *3 attorney’s upon took it himself to that the father November be issued. On holding order “interpret” meaning. the divorce decree’s the objections filed to husband the Although stopped making support into report, calling court commissioner’s attempted justi to payments altogether, he made the question each recommendation arrears, contending fy portion a of his that particular, he contended commissioner. daughter emancipated. We have his was past have to that he should not principle: espoused the par- payments for the support future party reduce an indivisi- who seeks to [A] daughter because eighteen-year-old ties’ of order of child because the contemplated by “emancipated” she was that some of the children had been fact 20,1991, decree. On November the divorce emancipated petition the court for to filed a motion reduce the husband unilaterally rather than modification obligation, contending it ducing payments. “We think a his precipitously. declined that his income had party a to the high-risk adventure for to returned the matter The district court interpret himself action to take it for further consid- the court commissioner court, particularly decree in view of a 30, 1992, the court On eration. continuing accessibility of the court.” the findings commissioner issued additional pertains in this in- The same rationale after addi- and recommendations obligor permit If we were to the stance. objected to tional evidence. The husband make unilateral modification of the report. that support requirements in the de- divorce cree, the trial court of that would divest record, the reviewing the entire After determine whether its its which denied district court issued order mod- previous order should be motion to reduce his child the husband’s particular the ified accordance with support obligation; found that the older circumstances the case. minor, child, emancipat- awas was not who Hinckley 812 P.2d Hinckley, v. ed; gave past- Redman, (Wyo.1991) (quoting Redman v. $5,425 in the amount due (Wyo.1974)). 587-88 medical and for $85.80; awarded fees care, custody, When a child needs the amount of and maintenance, the child is not emanci and The issued an income order. pated, duty provide support con and the appeals from order. husband Broyles, tinues. v. 711 P.2d Broyles instance, per (Wyo.1985). In we child, The that the record demonstrates ceive that the evidence was sufficient emancipat- contended was who the husband support the district court’s conclusion that ed, eighteen years old at time of was emancipated. the child was 6, 1991, hearing. the October She was graduated high She had from married. the dis husband contends that living was not at home. school and reducing trict court erred paid her part-time job some of be amount his living expenses. She had attended own interrupt employment had been college out. fi- dropped She was not but unemployed jail and in for a was ed—he mother, independent her nancially driving-while-intoxicated time because of meals, her laundry, her furnished who did supports conviction. The record part-time job, drove her to and from her modifi deny decision to the district court’s many expenses. cation, of the child’s On no abuse of discre we detect evidence, brief, of this basis In his husband admits husband tion. employed. At the again fully district court erred once contends he is hus- hearing, emancipated, was not evidence established finding that income even substantial received a band employed and that he he was not METAL, INC., while CASPER IRON & in assets which of dollars thousands owned below), (Appellant Appellant the child used to make have been could payments. See Underkofler P.2d 1140 Underkofler, 834 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COM Finally, OF the DEPARTMENT MISSION OF have awarded should not district court EMPLOYMENT OF THE STATE OF and that to the wife fees WYOMING; O’Brien, Ap A. and Mark he chal penalized because below). pellees (Appellees report and commissioner’s lenged *4 attorney’s fees. more even No. 92-39. proceed raised in these issues None Supreme Court of issue, attorney’s fees ings, including the court issued decided until the district wife availed The fact its order. opportunity evi herself of the husband’s contravention as to his motion re

objections, as well support obligation, cannot

duce launching pad for error. as a See

serve Foster,

Foster circumstances,

Under these attorney’s fees is not an

court’s award Underkofler, 834 P.2d of discretion.

abuse this penalties provid award costs 10.05, because no reason ed in W.R.A.P. appeal. for the existed

able hereby

agree. reason for the cause exists provide that the husband failed

reason complete cogent argument,

this Court with record, pertinent authori

citation of error. to substantiate claims

ties Edwards, 732 P.2d Edwards a state

(Wyo.1987). The wife shall submit attorney’s fees

ment of costs and

Court, and, review, appropriate penalty will

award by this Court.

ordered

Affirmed. Justice, dissenting partially concurring only. in result opinion

I dissent from appeal and

awarding attorney fees on oth- only. concur result

erwise