Summary 2006 WY 124

Summary of Decision issued September 29, 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: Boyle v. Boyle

Citation: 2006 WY 124

Docket Number: 05-258

Appeal from the District Court of Crook County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Mary A. Throne and Brandi L. Monger of Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Monger.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Kathryn J. Edelman of Edelman Law Office, Gillette, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether it was proper for the district court to consider banked hours, vacation hours and sick hours as marital property. Whether the district court abused its discretion in the property division set forth in the judgment and decree of divorce.

Holding: Husband and Wife were married September 4, 1994. Each party owned a home prior to the marriage but sold their individual properties and placed the proceeds in their joint accounts. They used their joint funds to purchase property and build a new home. District court held a trial on May 25, 2005. Both parties testified and the district court ordered them to prepare written submissions for the court’s consideration in issuing its final decree. The district court issued a decision letter outlining its basic property distribution and indicating it generally adopted Wife’s proposed distribution of the property. Husband appeals from the property disposition in the decree granting Wife’s complaint for divorce.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114 sets out the statutory requirements for disposition of a couple’s property in a divorce. The trial court has the discretion to determine what weight should be given each of the individual statutory factors. The Court has expansively discussed the “just and equitable” requirement in Sweat v. Sweat. The district court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
Employment Benefits: The three assets in question were Husband’s banked hours, vacation hours and accumulated sick leave. At trial, there was no testimony concerning these three assets except Wife’s answers on cross-examination. At the conclusion of the trial, the district court asked the parties to submit proposed decrees. Husband’s proposed decree did not address the employment benefits at all. Wife submitted a closing argument together with a revised version of the Joint Exhibit presented at trial which assigned those three benefits to Husband for “value”. Husband did not respond to Wife’s submission but in response to the decision letter, filed a list of questions regarding the disposition of the employment benefits. Wife responded that her position was for the assets to be set over to the Husband at the values shown on the Joint Exhibit because she understood that Husband’s employer would not transfer those assets to her regardless of any contrary order. The district court adopted Wife’s position and Husband did not object. Husband argued that employment benefits are not marital property and nothing more than a future expectancy. However, Husband did not provide evidence at trial concerning the nature of the benefits and/or whether they had present value, or that they were nothing more than a future expectancy or that they were not marital property. The Court stated that to decide the issue on the merits, the case would have to be remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing which would give Husband a “second bite at the apple” which he was not entitled to. Husband also submits a factual argument the employment benefits have no “cash value” to him, however the record does not contain evidence as to if or when Husband was entitled to cash out his employment benefits. The record does contain evidence about the value of the employment benefits. Based on the record, the Court stated that the district court properly valued benefits when it set them over to Husband.
Property Division: Husband argued the district court abused its discretion when it divided the parties’ marital property. The Court considered whether or not the evidence adduced at trial supported the property division as a whole, not necessarily each individual part of it. The record did not support Husband’s assertions. The district court expressly considered the parties’ contributions of premarital assets and the relative financial contributions of each party to the marital estate, together with the other statutory factors. The decision letter demonstrated consideration of the proper factors. A party contesting the district court’s division of the property must demonstrate the evidence adduced at trial does not support the property distribution as a whole. Husband did not explain why the equalization payment was not just and equitable or how the district court abused its discretion. Husband claimed the district court was punishing him for evidence of an extra-marital affair. There was no indication of any retribution in the record.

J. Burke’s dissent: The district court ordered Husband to pay Wife $729,400 to “equalize the division of the marital estate”. The district court included $284,204 in employment benefits as assets of the marriage to arrive at the payment amount. There was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s valuation of its finding that the employment benefits were marital assets. The majority noted that there was no evidence in the record indicating the employment benefits had or would have any cash value. The majority states that the absence of such evidence is fatal to Husband’s appeal. J. Burke disagreed. Wife had the burden of providing sufficient evidence at trial to support her claim. In light of Wife’s stated position that she was making no claim to the benefits and the lack of any evidentiary support for valuation of the benefits, Husband’s failure to provide any testimony or other evidence regarding the benefits is understandable and appropriate. J. Burke stated that although on appeal, the Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this case there was no evidence which supported the district court’s valuation of the employment benefits as marital assets. Review of the entire record leads to the conclusion that the district court’s valuation of the employment benefits was erroneous. J. Burke would have reversed and remanded to allow the district court to fashion an equitable property distribution without inclusion of the employment benefits as marital property.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court, with J. Burke dissenting.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/fyzev .