Summary 2006 WY 138

Summary of Decision issued October 31, 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.]

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

Case Name: Keller v. Keller

Citation: 2006 WY 138

Docket Number: 06-57

Appeal from the District Court of Washakie County, the Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): William R. Shelledy, Jr., of Scott, Shelledy and Luhm, P.C., Worland, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): John Davis, of Davis & Harrington, P.C., Worland, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion when it considered an expert’s valuation of pension annuities, along with other factors set out in § 20-2-114, Wyo. Stat. Ann. when determining an equitable disposition of marital property.

Holding: The parties were married in 1961 and had two children, now grown. Wife did not work outside the home during the marriage. The parties were able to reach an agreement as to the division of the majority of their assets and entered into a stipulation concerning the distribution of those assets. They agreed to divide equally a deferred compensation plan valued at $125,000, their marital home and possessions valued at $200,000, and IRAs valued at $138,000. The parties requested the district court to rule on one issue: the division of their Social Security benefits and Husband’s State retirement benefits. After receiving evidence on the matter, the district court concluded that the values of Husband’s State retirement account and Social Security pension plan should be reduced to their present value. And because Wife had a longer life expectancy, she would receive an additional $56,000 in retirement benefits, so her portion of the marital property should be offset by that amount.
Standard of Review: The ultimate question in determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred is whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did. The Court keeps in mind that the equitable division of property in a divorce case is as likely as not to be unequal. The district court’s division of marital property should not be disturbed except on clear grounds because the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to judge parties’ respective merits and needs and to assess the witnesses’ credibility and weigh their testimony.
Wife contended that the parties intended an “equal” division of their property and that life expectancy is mere speculation that should not be considered by the court in dividing property. Husband contended that the property division was supported by the testimony of an accountant and was equitable, especially given the fact that Wife presented no evidence on the issue. In reviewing the trial court’s decision, the Court considered the evidence in favor of the Husband as the successful party and held the trial court could reasonably concluded as it did that the $56,000 offset was equitable and did not abuse its discretion.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the order for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/y9vck7 .