Summary 2007 WY 47

Summary of Decision issued March 16, 2007

[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 with 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: Greene v. Finn, Personal Representative of Estate of Greene

Citation: 2007 WY 47

Docket Number: 05-274

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Respondent): John M. Kuker and Matthew H. Romsa of Romsa & Kuker, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant/Petitioner): Mark A. Bishop and Melinda D. Oldaker of Bishop & Oldaker, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the instant appeal should be dismissed because Husband failed to file a supersedeas bond as ordered by the district court. Whether the district court committed a clear and grave abuse of discretion, committed a serious procedural error, or violated a principle of law in holding Husband in contempt of court for failing to comply with certain procedures of the divorce decree.

Facts/Discussion: Husband appealed from an order finding him in contempt of court for failing to abide by the terms of a property settlement and divorce decree.
Standard of Review: Under the Court’s established standard for the review of contempt orders in domestic relations cases, the Court will not disturb the decision of the district court absent a serious procedural error, a violation of a principle of law, or a clear and grave abuse of discretion. The Court reviews questions of law de novo, according no deference to the district court’s decision.
Supersedeas bond: The Estate argued that the appeal should be dismissed because Husband had not filed the bond that was ordered by the district court. The Court stated that Estate’s argument was not well grounded in the appellate rules or in the substantive law governing supersedeas bonds. The Estate relied on W.R.A.P. 1.03 and 4.01. However, the Court stated that supersedeas bonds are governed by W.R.A.P. 4.02. The bond was likely requested by the Husband to prevent enforcement of the judgment pendente lite which comports with the general definition and effect of a supersedeas bond. The Estate’s remedy upon Husband’s failure to file the bond would have been to proceed to execute on the judgment, rather than seek dismissal of the appeal. By the terms of the district court order, the supersedeas would not have stayed the effect of the judgment in regard to the personal property.
District Court abuse of discretion, procedural error or violation of principle of law: The Court reduced the issue to three questions: (1) what was Husband found in contempt of court for failing to do; (32) was Husband clearly ordered to do that which he was found to have failed to do; and (3) did the district court abuse its discretion. The district court found Husband did not turn over one-half of the couple’s artwork, that he did not deliver possession of the Lichvar furniture, that he did not deliver possession of the Blazer, that he did not pay certain taxes, that he did not pay alimony, and that he did not pay one-half of the amounts due under the couple’s American Express credit cards. The Court reviewed the divorce decree to answer the second question. The order of the district court was clear except for where it ordered Husband to pay the “American Express Platinum and Blue” while it ordered Wife to pay “Amex – Blue/Platinum.” After a review of the record, the Court stated the district court violated the fundamental principle that an order on which a judgment of contempt is based must be clear and unambiguous because the decree simply did not make it clear that Husband was obligated to pay one-half the American Express credit card debt.

Holding: The divorce decree clearly ordered Husband to deliver to Wife one-half of the artwork, the Lichvar furniture and the Blazer. It also clearly ordered him to pay the property taxes on the “Rabbit Ears” and “Smole” properties and to pay Wife alimony in the amount of $1200 per month for six months. He did none of those things, so the district court did not err in finding him in contempt of court for those failures, or in ordering delivery of the property and in entering judgment for amounts owed. The decree did not clearly order Husband to pay one-half of the American Express credit card debt and the district court erred in finding him in contempt for that alleged failure.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed as to the artwork, the Lichvar furniture, the Blazer, the property taxes, and the alimony. It is reversed as to the American Express credit card debt and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/329as4 .