Summary 2006 WY 102

Summary of Decision issued August 15, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

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

Case Name: Houx v. Houx

Citation: 2006 WY 102

Docket Number: 05-260

Appeal from the District Court of Platte County, the Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): James A. Eddington, Jones & Eddington Law Offices, Torrington, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Tracy L. Zubrod, Zubrod Law Office, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the district court properly distributed the marital property.

Holding: Husband and Wife were divorced in 2005. In dividing the marital property, the trial court awarded the marital home to Husband and ordered him to pay Wife for her share of the home. The trial court valued the marital home at $356,000 the midpoint between the amount of an unaccepted purchase offer made on the property and the appraised value.
The disposition of marital property is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. In considering whether a district court abused its discretion, the Court asks whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether or not any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious. The Court considers only the evidence in favor of the successful party, ignores the evidence of the unsuccessful party and grants to the successful party every reasonable inference that can be drawn from the record.
Husband cited State Highway Comm’n v. Triangle Dev. Co. which was an eminent domain case in which the State Highway Commission condemned land belonging to Triangle Development Co. The Court held that unaccepted offers to purchase land were inadmissible to prove value in condemnation proceedings. They declined to apply the rule to the instant case. The Court stated that the instant case did not have the same hearsay or speculation concerns. The party claiming error is the same party who listed the property for sale, determined the list price and listed the property at a price higher than the purchase offer which he claims the trial court erred in considering. He also testified that he believed the purchase offer was within the minimum and maximum range of the property’s fair market value. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering evidence concerning the unaccepted purchase offer.
Husband also claimed that the admission of evidence concerning the purchase offer violated the statute of frauds. The statute, Section § 1-23-105(a)(v), comes into play to prevent enforcement of an unwritten agreement and has no bearing on the instant case. The Husband argued the trial court abused its discretion in considering oral testimony about the purchase offer without documentary evidence. Under the circumstances, the district court did not err in considering the oral testimony since there was no requirement that Husband’s testimony be supported by documentary evidence.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the Court.

Affirmed.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/m6rmm .