Wyttenbach v. Parrish

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
September 7, 2012
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
WILLIAM HAYES WYTTENBACH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 12-4074
v. (D.C. No. 2:11-CV-0968-CW)
(D. Utah)
RANITA M. PARRISH,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
William Wyttenbach wants money from his former domestic partner, Ranita
Parrish. Among other things, he says she breached the terms of a child custody
order issued by a Texas state court and he’s entitled to a refund of his child
support and other payments. The district court declined the invitation to take up
the case. Dismissing the suit, the court explained that it fell within the long-
entrenched if judge-made “domestic relations exception” to the congressional
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
statutes granting jurisdiction to the federal courts. See generally Ankenbrandt v.
Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992).
The district court was undoubtedly right. Federal courts have long
disclaimed responsibility for domestic relations cases, leaving the power to issue
and enforce “divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees” to the states. Id. at
703. Neither may a plaintiff overcome the exception and win a federal forum
simply by “disguis[ing] the true nature of [a domestic relations] action by
claiming that [it is] a claim for damages based on a breach of contract.”
McLaughlin v. Cotner, 193 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 1999). This, however, is
precisely what Mr. Wyttenbach seeks to do. While he says his suit sounds in
contract, there’s no question that he would like a federal court to evaluate Ms.
Parrish’s obligations under child custody arrangements negotiated in and
supervised by a state court, hold that Ms. Parrish failed to comply with her
obligations, and tell her to refund the money he’s paid under their agreement.
For her part, Ms. Parrish wants us not just to affirm the district court but
issue sanctions. We certainly have the authority to sanction a party whose appeal
is “presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause
unnecessary . . . expense in the litigation.” 10th Cir. R. 46.5(B)(1) and (D). And
Ms. Parrish has pointed to an array of filings by Mr. Wyttenbach in other courts
that suggest his litigation here is not just meritless but designed to harass. Still,
this is his first filing in this court and a mistake over the scope of our jurisdiction
-2-
is not always the same thing as seeking to harass. Of course, Mr. Wyttenbach is
now fully on notice of his error and further filings in federal court on this same
subject matter would be difficult to explain as consistent with any upright purpose
and may well be subject to sanction.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Ms. Parrish’s motion for
sanctions is denied.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-