Judicial Discretion in Parental Income Determination and the Limits of Rule 60 Relief in Child Support Modifications

Introduction

David Martorano v. Melissa Mazzei f/k/a Melissa Martorano (2025 WY 53) addresses a post-divorce dispute over child support modification. After their 2020 divorce, the parties—David (“Father”) and Melissa (“Mother”)—each filed confidential financial affidavits (“CFAs”) to establish current income for support calculations. Father’s two CFAs, one for 2022 and another for 2023, differed dramatically: the earlier showed a net monthly income of $46,150, while the later showed a negative net income of $5,455. The Natrona County District Court relied on the 2022 CFA, set support accordingly and calculated arrears. Father moved under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to correct what he termed a “mistake” and to restart arrears from the first full month after service. The district court granted partial relief on arrears timing but otherwise denied Father’s motion. Father appealed, arguing that the court had erred both in declining to accept his updated CFA and in refusing full relief under Rule 60(a) and (b).

Summary of the Judgment

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. It held:

Under Rule 60(a), no clerical mistake occurred: the court had unambiguously chosen Father’s 2022 CFA income and intended to calculate support on that basis.
Under Rule 60(b), Father failed to show mistake, inadvertence or any “other reason” justifying relief from a discretionary child‐support determination; challenges to factual or discretionary rulings must be brought by direct appeal, not via Rule 60 motion.
The district court properly exercised its broad discretion in determining which CFA to rely on and in calculating support arrears based on that choice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Stone v. Stone (2023 WY 21): Clarifies the two-part test for Rule 60(a) relief—(1) whether a clerical mistake or oversight exists, and (2) whether the proposed correction would substantively alter the judgment.
Snyder v. Snyder (2021 WY 101): Establishes that Rule 60(a) cannot effect substantive changes, only “make the judgment speak the truth” of the court’s original intent.
Chesapeake Exploration, LLC v. Morton Production Co., LLC (2025 WY 15): Reinforces that Rule 60(a) addresses only mechanical errors apparent on the face of the record.
Olson v. Schriner (2020 WY 36): Emphasizes that review of Rule 60(b) denials is “severely limited,” and cannot be used to re-litigate discretionary rulings.
Marquis v. Marquis (2020 WY 141) and Amadio v. Amadio (2025 WY 21): Confirm that district courts have broad discretion in determining parental net income for child support and are not required to make detailed written findings in the absence of a party’s request under Rule 52.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s opinion proceeds in two parts:

Rule 60(a) Analysis: Father claimed the court mistakenly used his outdated 2022 CFA. But the record—both written order and oral ruling—explicitly cited his $46,150 monthly income. No clerical error or “oversight” was evident. Correcting to his 2023 CFA figures would have substantively altered the judgment, which Rule 60(a) forbids.
Rule 60(b) Analysis: Father argued mistake/inadvertence under subsection (b)(1) and “other reason” under (b)(6). The Court noted:
- Relief under (b)(1) presumes an inadvertent error; here, the district court’s deliberate choice of the 2022 CFA belies any inadvertence.
- Relief under (b)(6) requires grounds that do not fall under other subsections and “justify relief.” Father’s true recourse to challenge income determinations was a direct appeal of the support order itself, not a collateral Rule 60 attack on a discretionary decision.
The court emphasized that district courts have broad discretion to decide which CFA more accurately reflects a parent’s income and may do so without detailed findings unless one party specifically requests them under Rule 52.

Impact

This decision provides several durable principles for family law practitioners and trial courts in Wyoming:

Rule 60(a) remains confined to clerical mistakes; substantive disagreements over net‐income findings require direct appellate review.
Rule 60(b) may not be used to re-litigate discretionary income or support rulings; it is not an end‐run around preservation rules for direct appeals.
In the absence of a formal request under Rule 52 for written findings, a trial court need not elaborate on why it selected one CFA over another, provided its ruling is unambiguous.
Practitioners should ensure timely objections and, if needed, requests for findings at trial to preserve challenges to income determinations for appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Confidential Financial Affidavit (CFA): A sworn statement of income and expenses submitted by a parent in family law cases to help calculate child support.
Rule 60(a) (“Clerical Mistakes”): Permits correction of obvious record errors—e.g., typos—so the judgment reflects the court’s original intent. It cannot change substantive rulings.
Rule 60(b)(1) (“Mistake or Excusable Neglect”): Allows relief from judgment when a party shows they were misled or mistakes occurred. It does not apply to deliberate discretionary choices.
Rule 60(b)(6) (“Other Reasons”): A catch-all for extraordinary circumstances not covered elsewhere. It cannot be used to re-argue routine trial errors or discretionary rulings.
Direct Appeal vs. Collateral Attack: A direct appeal challenges the trial court’s order on its merits. A Rule 60 motion is a collateral attack that generally cannot substitute for a direct appeal of discretionary decisions.

Conclusion

David Martorano v. Melissa Mazzei reaffirms that trial courts have broad discretion in selecting among conflicting income affidavits when modifying child support. It underscores that Rule 60(a) corrects only mechanical record‐keeping errors, and Rule 60(b) may not be used to relitigate or alter discretionary rulings that should have been appealed directly. Going forward, litigants and judges in Wyoming will look to this decision to understand the narrow scope of post-judgment relief and the importance of preserving challenges to income determinations at trial.