Summary 2006 WY 1

Summary of Decision issued January 4, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Dunham v. Dunham

Citation: 2006 WY 1

Docket Number: 05-59

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Robert W. Brown of Lonabaugh and Riggs, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): John P. Worrall of Worrall, Greear & Smith, PC, Worland, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: January 1, 2006

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion in not dividing $61, 000 that Appellee transferred out of the couple’s joint bank accounts to accounts held solely in Appellee’s name prior to filing for divorce. Whether the district court abused its discretion in treating Appellee’s “Whiting Petroleum income” as past annual income instead of divisible marital property.

Holdings: The division of marital property is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. The Court considers only the evidence of the successful party, with every favorable inference that can be drawn from the record. The Court limited their review to the “Statement of Evidence or Proceedings” which had been filed in accordance with W.R.A.P. 3.03. The district court stated in their amended decision letter that it was not able to make significant findings regarding the $61,000 because of the incomplete records they received. The record revealed that Appellant testified regarding the transactions and the trial court found it credible. Under the deferential standard previously stated, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision.
The “Whiting Petroleum income” was considered income by the trial court because Appellant testified he had no right or guarantee to future payments. It was used as income to calculate child support. The Court reviewed the record and stated that the district court weighed the evidence and made a finding of fact that the income was not guaranteed in the future. Based on this finding, the district court correctly determined that this money could not be divided as an item of marital property.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to case: http://tinyurl.com/8faph .